it  !! 


til    <    i! 


i      ' 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

RIVERSIDE 


GIFT  OF 

Haynes  Foundation 

Los  Angeles 


Story  of  the  Session 

of  the 

California  Legislature 

of 

1911 


By 
Franklin   Hichborn 


'California  is  a  State  worth  fighting  for" 

HIRAM  W.  JOHNSON 


San  Francisco 

Press  of  The  James  H.  Barry  Company 
1911 


H53 


COPYRIGHT,     1911 


F~RANKI_IN    HIGHBORN 


CONTENTS 


Chapter  Page 

I.  The  New  Order .._JLL_ 

II.  Organization    24 

III.  Key  to  the   1911   Legislature 40 

IV.  Election  of  United  States  Senator 50 

V.  Amendment  of  Direct  Primary  Law 71 

VI.  Restoration  of  Australian   Ballot 87 

VII.  Initiative  and  Referendum  Amendment :  93 

_ — 

VIII.  The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary 102 

IX.  Adoption  of  Recall  Amendment 123 



X.  Direct  Legislation  Measures 137 

XI.  Railroad  Measures  143 

XII.  The  Conservation  Measures 156 

XIII.  Moral  Issues  J£9- 

XIV.  Amendment  of  the   Anti-Racetrack    Gambling- 

Law   182 

XV.  Proponents  and  Opponents  of  Local  Option..  190 

XVI.  County  Unit  Defeated 201 

XVII.  Supervisorial  District  Unit  Adopted 215 

XVIII.  Labor  and  the  Legislature 225 

XIX.  Employers'  Liability  Act 235 

XX.  Woman's  Eight-Hour  Bill 246 

XXI.  The  Compulsory  Arbitration  Bill 261 

XXII.  The  Free  Text  Book  Measures 265 

XXIII.  Defeat  of  the  Anti-Injunction  Bill 271 

XXIV.  Reapportionment   284 

XXV.  The  Tide  Lands  Controversy 297 


Chapter  Page 

XXVI.     Sectional  Divisions  315 

XXVII.     Concerning  Many  Measures 324 

(a)  Amendment  of  Banking  Law 324 

(b)  Charter  Government  for  Counties 327 

(c)  Equal  Suffrage  Amendment \22£" 

(d)  Prison  Reforms   331 

(e)  Board   of   Control 334 

(f)  The  Short  Ballot  Measures 335 

(g)  Reform  of  Criminal  Procedure 338 

(h)  The  Anti-Japanese  Bills 342 

XXVIII.     Conclusion 345 

APPENDIX    349 

Governor  Johnson's  Inaugural  Address i 

Governor  Johnson  on  Prison  Employment  Bill xvii 

1910  Republican   State   Platform xix 

1910  Democratic  State   Platform xxv 

1907-8  Platform   Lincoln-Roosevelt  League xxvii 

1909-10  Platform  Lincoln-Roosevelt  League xxviii 

Explanations  of  Votes  for  United  States  Senator xxx 

Explanation  of  Tables  of  Votes xxxvi 

Tables — 

Table      I— Senate  Test  Votes. 

Table    II— Assembly  Test  Votes. 

Table    II — Concluded,  Assembly  Test  Votes. 

Table  III — Senate  Votes  on  Labor  Issues. 

Table  IV — Assembly  Votes  on  Labor  Issues. 

Table  IV — Concluded,  Assembly  Votes  on  Labor  Issues. 

Table     V — Assembly  Votes,  Local  Option. 

Table  VI — Senate  Votes,  Local  Option. 


PREFACE. 

The  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909  dealt 
with  the  blocking  of  progressive  measures  by  the  firmly- 
entrenched  political  organization  known  in  California, 
for  the  want  of  a  better  name,  as  the  "machine." 

The  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911  deals 
with  the  passage  of  the  progressive  measures,  the  defeat 
of  which  had  been  accomplished  two  years  before. 

The  purpose  of  preparing  the  review  of  the  1911  ses- 
sion for  the  press  is  to  give  the  California  public  the 
knowledge  of  how  these  progressive  measures  were 
passed,  who  were  instrumental  in  their  passage,  and  who 
opposed  their  enactment  into  law.  The  same  general 
plan  of  treatment  is  followed  in  the  1911  review  as  in 
that  of  the  1909  session. 

The  political  revolution  through  which  California  has 
passed,  the  development  of  the  State  during  the  last 
decade,  and  the  accompanying  increase  of  population,  to- 
gether with  the  gaining  power  of  Labor  in  industry  and 
politics,  present  new  issues  which  The  People  of  Califor- 
nia are  called  upon  to  meet.  Measures  involving  these 
new  issues  are  considered  at  length. 

Thus  the  tenderloin  interests,  cut  off  from  the  legis- 
lative support  of  their  political  allies,  the  public  service 
corporations,  were  not  only  unable  to  prevent  the  pas- 
sage of  an  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  law  and  a  Local 
Option  law  at  the  1911  session,  but  failed  in  their  efforts 
to  prevent  measures  for  effective  treatment  of  the  social 
evil  becoming  a  recognized  State  issue,  to  be  considered, 
not  from  the  standpoint  of  financial  backers  and  ex- 


ploiters  of  prostitution,  but  on  the  basis  of  practical  solu- 
tion. For  this  reason,  several  chapters  are  devoted  to 
moral  issues,  issues  which  bid  fair  henceforth  to  be  con- 
sidered on  their  merits. 

In  the  same  way,  scientific  treatment  of  the  problems 
that  have  arisen  because  of  changed  conditions  of  indus- 
try can  no  longer  be  sneered  down  or  laughed  down. 
Several  chapters  are  accordingly  devoted  to  the  so-called 
Labor  measures  with  which  the  1911  session  was  called 
upon  to  deal. 

Another  important  question,  due  to  the  shifting  of 
population  to  certain  confined  areas,  is  that  of  reappor- 
tionment  of  the  State  into  legislative  districts.  Three 
counties,  with  an  area  of  4882  square  miles,  are  shown  by 
the  1910  census  to  have  a  population  of  1,167,170,  an 
increase  of  523,897  in  ten  years.  The  remaining  fifty- 
five  counties  of  the  State,  with  153,415  square  miles, 
have,  according  to  the  1910  census,  a  population  of 
1,210,350.  Thus  fifty-five  counties,  with  an  area  of 
153,415  square  miles,  have  a  population  of  only  43,180 
more  than  three  counties  with  an  area  of  only  4882 
square  miles. 

Because  of  this,  conditions  have  arisen  which  were 
not  thought  of  when  the  State  Constitution  of  1879  was 
adopted.  But  reapportionment  must  be  made  under  the 
provisions  of  the  1879  Constitution.  The  1911  Legisla- 
ture was  frankly  unable  to  deal  with  the  new  problems 
presented,  and  adjourned  without  a  reapportionment 
bill  having  been  passed.  The  subject  of  reapportionment 
is  treated  in  detail. 

The  so-called  Tide  Lands  bills,  the  passage  of  which 
marks  the  entering  upon  a  new  policy  in  the  manage- 


ment  of  water  front  properties,  are  considered  at  length, 
because  their  passage  indicates  how  the  large  centers  of 
population  may,  through  the  Legislature,  dominate  the 
State,  and  for  the  further  reason  that  the  future  indus- 
trial well-being  of  California  depends  largely  upon  cor- 
rect solution  of  the  water  front  problem. 

No  attempt  has  been  made  to  deal  with  all  the  im- 
portant measures  considered  at  the  1911  session  of  the 
Legislature.  But  those  which  give  a  wide  view  of  the 
session's  work  have  been  treated,  as  well  as  those  in 
the  defeat  or  passage  of  which  large  groups  were  inter- 
ested, or  important  policies  involved. 

FRANKLIN  HIGHBORN. 
Santa  Clara,  Cal.,  Sept.  21,  1911. 


CHAPTER  I. 
THE  NEW  ORDER. 

At  the  Primary  and  Final  Elections  of  1910,  Those  Can- 
didates for  the  Legislature  Who,  as  Members  of 
Senate  and  Assembly  of  /pop,  Had  Opposed  Progres- 
sive Policies  Were  Defeated,  While  Those  Who  Had 
Supported  Such  Policies  Were  Re-elected — But  the 
Progressives  of  Both  Houses,  While  Presumably  in 
Strong  Majority,  Previous  to  the  Meeting  of  the  ip/i 
Legislature,  Were  Without  Definite  Plan  of  Action, 

or  Even  Fixed  Policies. 

I 

The  election  of  Hiram  W.  Johnson,  Governor  of 
California,  (carried  with  it  the  defeat  of  the  "machine" 
members  of  Senate  and  Assembly  who  had  for  years 
dominated  the  Legislature/)  On  the  other  hand,  those 
members  of  Senate  and  Assembly  who,  during  the  ses- 
sion of  1909  had  opposed  machine  measures  and  policies, 

^  i  The  following  statement  issued  immediately  after  the  No- 
vember elections  (1910),  by  Meyer  Lissner,  Chairman  of  the  Re- 
publican State  Central  Committee,  indicates  how  complete  was  the 

v'anti-machine    victory: 

"Four  years  ago  the  first  serious  organized  effort  to  take  the 
control  of  the  government  of  California  from  the  political  bureau 
of  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  was  begun.  Those  loyal,  real 
Republicans,  who  initiated  that  movement,  were  scoffed  at  for 
their  pains.  The  railroad  had  so  long  been  in  control,  its  tentacles 
were  so  firmly  fastened  in  every  governmental  department,  State, 
county  and  municipal,  that  it  was  generally  considered  invincible. 
It  was  a  big  job  to  attempt  to  smash  the  machine  of  the  interests, 
but  it  has  been  accomplished.  Like  all  great  undertakings  that 
are  right  in  principle,  this  movement  in  California  needed  a  man 
to  lead  it  to  victory,  and  that  great  leader  was  found  in  Hiram  W. 
Johnson.  Without  a  man  of  his  calibre,  ability  and  unselfish  devo- 
tion to  the  cause,  we  could  not  have  won;  but  we  have  sue- 


12  The  New  Order 

were,  in  the  majority  of  cases,  re-elected  to  serve  in  the 
Legislature  of  1911.  This  is  particularly  true  of  the 
Senate. 

At  the  session  of  1909,  the  Senate  had  divided,  for 
example,  on  the  question  of  a  State-wide  practical  vote 
for  nomination  of  United  States  Senator.2  The  anti- 
machine  members  had  advocated  the  State-wide  vote. 
The  so-called  organization  or  "machine"  Senators  had 
advanced,  with  eventual  success,  the  "district,  advisory- 
vote"  plan. 

Of  the  twenty  Senators  whose  terms  expired  at  the 
close  of  1910,  eleven  had  supported  the  "district,  advisory- 
vote"  plan.  One  only  of  the  eleven,  Senator  Leroy  A. 
Wright  of  San  Diego,  was  re-elected.  The  ten 3  re- 


ceeded,  and  it  Is  a  great  day  for  California.  It  is  not  altogether 
a  victory  for  the  Republican  party;  it  is  equally  the  victory  of 
Progressive  Americanism;  it  transcends  all  party  lines  because 
the  issue  that  was  made  was  not  a  party  issue  at  all.  It  was  the 
allied  special  interests  on  one  side  against  the  people  on  the 
other,  and  the  people  won. 

"The  next  Legislature  will  be  the  best  Legislature  ever  assem- 
bled in  the  State  of  California;  and  with  Governor  Johnson  in  the 
State  Capitol  and  Lieutenant-Governor  Wallace  presiding  over  the 
State  Senate  and  appointing  the  Senate  Committees,  unquestion- 
ably the  pledges  of  the  party  platform  will  be  redeemed  and  more 
progressive,  constructive  legislation  enacted  than  California  has 
been  given  for  a  generation. 

"Our  campaign  was  conducted  on  principle  and  on  absolutely 
clean  lines.  We  did  not  barter,  or  pledge,  or  compromise  in  any 
manner.  No  candidate  elected  on  the  Republican  ticket  is  in  any 
way  obligated  except  to  the  people  themselves. 

"To  the  thousands  of  loyal  citizens  throughout  the  State  who 
gave  so  generously  of  their  time  and  money  in  this  campaign,  we 
extend  our  sincere  thanks  and  appreciation,  and  to  the  loyal  Re- 
publican and  Independent  press  of  the  State,  without  whose  aid 
the  victory  could  not  have  been  won,  we  feel  under  still  greater 
obligations." 

2  See  Chapters  VIII,  IX,  X,  XI,  "Story  of  the  California  Leg- 
islature of  1909." 

s  Of  the  ten,  four,  Hartman,  Leavitt,  McCartney  and  Savage, 
were  defeated  at  the  primaries;  two,  Kennedy  and  Price,  were 
defeated  at  the  final  election;  four,  Willis,  Bates,  Reily  and 
Weed,  were  not  candidates  for  re-election. 


The  New  Order  13 

maining,  although  the  majority  were  candidates  for  re- 
election, were  not  returned  to  the  Senate. 

The  nine  retiring  Senators,  who  had  opposed  the 
machine  on  this  issue,  were  Anthony,  Bell,  Black,  Boyn- 
ton,  Caminetti,  Cartwright,  Curtin,  Miller  and  Sanford. 

Of  the  nine,  Miller  declined  to  be  a  candidate  for 
re-election.  Anthony  was  a  candidate  for  nomination  for 
re-election  in  a  district 4  which  probably  contains  a  greater 
percentage  of  disreputable  characters  than  any  other 
Senatorial  district  of  the  State.  Anthony  was  defeated. 
The  remaining  seven  Senators  of  the  nine  who  had  voted 
for  the  practical  State-wide  plan  for  nominating  United 
States  Senators  were  re-elected. 

Another  issue  which  divided  the  Senate  of  1909 
sharply  was  that  of  Railroad  regulation.  The  two  meas- 
ures over  which  the  division  came  were  the  Wright  Rail- 
road Regulation  bill,  and  the  Stetson  Railroad  Regula- 
tion bill. 

The  Stetson  bill  was  regarded  as  practical  and  ef- 
fective, and  was,  indeed,  made  the  basis  of  the  Eshle- 
man  Railroad  Regulation  measure  which  became  a  law 
at  the  1911  session.  The  Wright  bill  was  not — to  put 
it  very  mildly — regarded  as  so  effective  as  the  Stetson 
bill.  The  Stetson  bill  was  defeated  at  the  session  of 
1909,5  however,  the  Wright  bill  becoming  a  law.6 

Of  the  twenty  Senators  whose  terms  expired  at  the 

4  The  Twenty-fourth  Senatorial  District  (1901  apportionment), 
which  Includes  the  San  Francisco  Chinatown  and  tenderloin.  An- 
thony made  the  best  record  of  the  San  Francisco  delegation  In 
the  1909  Senate.  Nevertheless,  he  opposed  several  important  Pro- 
gressive measures,  notably  the  Stetson  Railroad  Regulation  bill. 

s  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,"  Chapters 
XII  and  XIII. 

e  About  the  first  thing  the  Legislature  of  1911  did  was  to  repeal 
the  Wright  law.  See  Chapter  XI. 


14  The  New  Order 

close  of  1910,  twelve  at  the  test  supported  the  Wright 
bill,  and  eight  the  Stetson  bill. 

Of  the  twelve  who  supported  the  Wright  bill,  only 
one  was  re-elected,  Wright  of  San  Diego.  The  remain- 
ing eleven  7  did  not  sit  in  the  Senate  of  1911. 

On  the  other  hand,  of  the  eight  who  supported  the 
Stetson  bill,  one,  Miller,  was  not  a  candidate  for  re-elec- 
tion, while  the  remaining  seven  8  were  re-elected. 

Such  examples  could  be  multiplied.  With  but  one 
or  two  exceptions,  those  retiring  Senators,  who,  at  the 
session  of  1909  had  supported  progressive  policies,  were 
re-elected,  while  those  who  had  opposed  such  policies 
were  not  returned  to  the  Senate. 

The  same  was  largely  true  of  the  Assembly. 

On  the  eleven  votes  9  which  were  generally  accepted 
as  the  test  votes  of  the  Assembly  of  1909,  forty  of  the 
eighty  Assemblymen  voted  only  five  times  each,  or  less 
than  five  times  each,  for  the  so-called  progressive  policies. 
Of  these  forty  Assemblymen,  only  two 10  were  re-elected 
to  the  Assembly,  although  two X1  were  elevated  to  the 
Senate. 

On  the  other  hand,  of  the  forty  Assemblymen  who, 
at  the  session  of  1909  were  recorded  as  voting  for  pro- 
gressive policies  six  times  or  more  on  the  eleven  test 


7  Anthony,     Bates,     Hartman,     Kennedy,     Leavitt,     McCartney, 
Price,   Reily,    Savage,   Weed,   Willis. 

8  Black,  Bell,   Boynton,   Caminetti,  Cartwright,  Curtln  and  San- 
ford. 

9  See  Tables  B  and  C,    "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of 
1909." 

10  Assemblymen   Schmitt  and   Coghlan,    both   of   San   Francisco. 

11  Beban  of   San  Francisco,   and  Hans  of  Alameda. 


The  New  Order  15 

votes,  no  less  than  twenty-one12  were  re-elected  to  the 
Assembly,  while  one  1S  was  elected  to  the  Senate. 

Although  the  election  returns  which  showed  the  de- 
feat of  the  old  machine  guard  of  Senate  and  Assembly 
were  most  gratifying  to  the  Progressives  of  both  parties, 
nevertheless  there  was  nothing  to  show  conclusively  that 
the  Progressives  would  be  in  control  of  either  House. 
Indeed,  there  was  good  reason  to  believe  that  the  con- 
trary would  develop.  The  San  Francisco  delegation- 
elect  to  both  Senate  and  Assembly  14  was  known  to  be 
something  less  desirable,  if  such  could  be  possible,  than 
the  San  Francisco  delegation  that  had  sat  in  the  Legis- 
lature of  1909.  The  only  thing  of  which  the  Progres- 
sives could  be  certain  was  that  twenty-one  Assemblymen 
had  been  re-elected,  whose  records  at  the  session  of  1909 
would  indicate  that  they  could  be  counted  upon  to  sup- 
port Progressive  measures.  In  the  new  Senate  were 
eighteen  15  members  who  had  made  good  records  at  the 

12  The  1909  records  on  the  eleven  test  votes  of  the  twenty-one 
members  of  the  Assembly  of  1909,  who  were  returned  to  the 
Assembly  of  1911,  were  as  follows:  For  Progress  and  Reform 
eleven  times:  Bohnett,  Cattell,  Hewitt,  Mendenhall,  Polsley,  Telfer, 
Wilson,  Young;  for  Progress  and  Reform  ten  times  and  once  ab- 
sent, Cogswell,  Kehoe,  Maher  and  Wyllie;  for  Progress  and  Re- 
form ten  times  and  once  against,  Flint,  Hinkle  and  Stuckenbruck. 
The  six  remaining  Assemblymen,  Gerdes,  Rutherford,  Griffiths, 
Hayes,  Beatty  and  Cronin,  on  the  eleven  tests,  voted  six  times 
or  more  with  the  Progressives. 

is  Juilliard  of  Sonoma.  At  the  session  of  1909,  on  the  eleven 
test  Assembly  votes,  Mr.  Juilliard  is  recorded  as  voting  ten  times 
for  Progress  and  Reform,  and  once  absent. 

i*  Mr.  Frederick  O'Brien,  of  the  United  Press,  in  his  "Call  of 
the  Roll,"  of  the  1911  Legislature,  names  four  San  Francisco  mem- 
bers outright  as  saloonkeepers  or  bartenders.  The  claim  has  been 
made  that  no  less  than  twelve  of  the  twenty-seven  members  of 
the  San  Francisco  legislative  delegation  of  1911  were  barkeepers  or 
otherwise  connected  with  the  saloon  business. 

is  At  the  meeting  of  Senators  at  Santa  Barbara  following  the 
November  elections,  some  went  so  far  as  to  claim  that  in  the 
Senate  but  seventeen  members  could  be  counted  upon  on  every 
occasion  to  support  progressive  policies.  This  was  four  members 
less  than  the  majority  of  twenty-one  necessary  for  the  control  of 
the  Senate. 


16  The  New  Order 

session  of  1909  and  who  were  generally  relied  upon,  three 
who  were  doubtful,  ten  whose  legislative  records  were 
not  on  the  side  of  progressive  policies,  while  the  remain- 
ing nine  members  were  untried  men,  with  records  yet  to 
be  established. 

On  the  other  hand,  every  member  of  both  Houses, 
Democrat  as  well  as  Republican,  had  been  pledged  by 
his  party  platform  to  support  the  progressive  policies 
which  the  machine  element  had,  at  the  session  of  1909, 
succeeded  in  defeating.  Thus,  by  their  party  platforms, 
the  Republican  and  Democratic  members  were  obligated 
to  restore  the  Australian  ballot  to  its  original  simplicity 
and  effectiveness,  to  make  provision  for  a  State-wide, 
practical  vote  for  the  nomination  of  United  States  Sena- 
tors, to  take  the  judiciary  out  of  politics,  to  simplify  the 
methods  of  criminal  procedure,  to  submit  a  constitutional 
amendment  to  the  people  providing  for  the  Initiative, 
to  pass  an  effective  Railroad  Regulation  law. 

All  these  reforms  had  been  defeated  at  the  legislative 
session  of  1909. 

In  addition  to  the  above-named  reforms,  both  parties 
were,  by  their  platforms,  pledged  to  the  adoption  of  a 
Constitutional  Amendment  providing  for  the  Referendum 
and  Recall,  to  correction  of  the  Direct  Primary  law  of 
1909,  and  to  the  passage  of  effective  conservation  laws.15* 

The  Republican  party,  which  dominated  both  Houses 
of  the  Legislature,  had  in  its  State  platform  gone  even 
further.  The  Republican  majority  in  both  Houses — if 
party  majority  counts  for  anything — were,  by  their  plat- 

I5a  See    the    Republican    and    Democratic    platforms    printed    in 
the   appendix. 


The  New  Order  17 

form,  pledged  to  the  legislation  necessary  to  provide  "for 
a  short  ballot,"  reducing  to  a  minimum  the  number  of 
elective  officers,  and  thereby  relieving  the  confusion 
caused  by  a  multitude  of  candidates  for  minor  offices ;  to 
a  county  Government  act  to  provide  "home  rule  for  coun- 
ties," similar  to  that  enjoyed  by.  municipalities;  to  the 
enactment  of  laws  for  the  establishment  in  California  of 
a  modern  reformatory  for  first  offenders;  to  systematic 
examination  of  the  business  accounts  of  State  and  County 
offices ;  an  Employers'  Liability  Act  to  put  on  the  indus- 
try the  charges  of  its  risks  to  human  life  and  limb,  along 
the  lines  recommended  by  Theodore  Roosevelt. 

Another  provision  contained  in  the  Republican  plat- 
form that  is  not  found  in  the  Democratic,  is  a  pledge  to 
submit  "to  the  judgment  of  the  voters  of  California 
a  constitutional  amendment  providing  for  woman  suf- 
frage."16 

But  the  experience  of  the  past  in  California  had  been 
that  party  platforms  impose  no  obligation  that  holds  be- 
yond the  day  of  election.  Because  the  party  platforms 
declared  for  effective  railroad  regulation,  a  practical  Di- 
rect Primary  law,  and  the  restoration  of  the  Australian 
ballot,  it  was  by  no  means  certain  that  those  gentlemen, 
who  as  candidates  prate  loudest  of  party  obligation, 
would  be  held  bound  by  party  declarations  as  set  forth  in 
the  several  platforms.17 

It  was  generally  recognized  that  the  fulfillment  of 

16  See  Republican   platform  printed   in  the  appendix. 

17  Senator   Wolfe,    for    many    years    Republican    leader    in    the 
Senate,  in  his  argument  against  the  Woman  Suffrage  Amendment, 
in  the  Senate  January  26,   1911,  insisted  that  in  spite  of  platform 
declaration,    the   Republican    party   was    not   bound   by   any   party 
pledge   for  woman   suffrage.     The   test  in   determining   the  will   of 


1 8  The  New  Order 

these  party  pledges  had  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  which 
party  was  successful  at  the  polls,  but  whether  the  major- 
ity in  the  Legislature,  regardless  of  party  affiliations,  was 
independent  of  the  political  machine  which  had  long 
dominated  the  State.  And  that  was  a  question  to  be 
given  conclusive  answer  only  after  the  Legislature  had 
convened. 

Soon  after  the  November  elections,  a  meeting  of  Sen- 
ators,18 recognized  as  being  independent  of  the  Southern 
Pacific  political  machine,  met  at  Santa  Barbara  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining,  so  far  as  possible,  the  exact 
working  force  of  the  anti-machine  element.  Governor- 
elect  Johnson  and  Lieutenant-Governor-elect  Wallace  at- 
tended the  meeting. 

If  the  meeting  developed  anything,  it  was  that  the 
Progressive  Republicans  could  not  count  upon  control  of 
the  Senate.  Certain  Senators,  usually  classed  as  "Pro- 
gressives," were  not  classified  as  dependable  on  all  issues. 
What  should  be  done  was  clear  enough,  what  could  be 
done  was  by  no  means  so  clear  to  the  Senators  in  at- 
tendance. 

But  far  more  important  than  the  Santa  Barbara  gath- 
ering, was  the  final  meeting  of  the  Republican  State 
Central  Committee  held  in  San  Francisco  on  November 
15.  The  attendance  was  not  limited  to  members  of  the 


the  people,  Wolfe  contended,  is  found  in  the  vote  given  the  stand- 
ard bearer  of  the  party.  He  denied  that  Governor  Johnson  had 
received  a  majority  vote.  Therefore,  Wolfe  held,  the  principles 
set  forth  in  the  Republican  State  platform  are  not  necessarily  the 
principles  sanctioned  by  a  majority  of  the  Republican  party,  or 
by  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the  State. 

is  The  Senators  who  attended  the  Santa  Barbara  meeting  were 
Cutten,  Birdsall,  Boynton,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Tyrrell,  Rush,  Liar- 
kins,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Thompson,  Bell,  Estudillo  and  Roseberry. 
Several  other  Senators  had  been  invited  but  were  unable  to  attend. 


The  New  Order  19 

committee  alone.  State  Senators,  Assemblymen,  editors 
of  not  only  progressive  but  reactionary  newspapers, 
county  chairmen  and  citizens  who  had  contended  long 
for  the  Progressive  policies  set  forth  in  the  Republican 
and  Democratic  State  platforms,  were  present  and  took 
part  in  the  discussions. 

Those  in  attendance  assumed  as  a  matter  of  course 
that  the  Republican  majority  in  the  Legislature  would 
carry  out  the  platform  pledges.  The  Chairman  of  the 
State  Central  Committee  was  instructed  to  appoint  com- 
mittees for  the  purpose  of  preparing  tentative  sugges- 
tions or  measures  in  conformity  with  the  platform  pledges 
of  the  Republican  party,  for  submission  to  the  Legisla- 
ture.19 Acting  under  these  instructions,  Chairman  Meyer 
Lissner  appointed  the  several  committees 20  authorized. 

19  There  was  some  criticism  at  the  time  that  the  State  Central 
Committee   should   offer  suggestions   to   the   Legislature.     Curiously 
enough,    the    Republican    State    Central    Committee — or    the    forces 
theretofore   behind    the    State   Central    Committee — had    always   of- 
fered  such   suggestions.    At   the   session   of  1899,    the   year  of   the 
Burns  Senatorial  deadlock,  the  State  Central  Committee  even  went 
so  far  as  to   open  headquarters   at  Sacramento,   and   remained  at 
the  capital  during  the  entire  session,  chairman,  secretary  and  all, 
in  the  interest  of  the  machine  candidate  for  the  Federal   Senate. 
The  only  difference  in  1910  was  that  the  suggestions  were  made 
in    the    interest   of    the    whole    people    and   in    the    furtherance    of 
pledges  under  which  the  progressive  wing  of  the  Republican  party 
had   been   intrusted   with   the   government  of   the    State,   while   at 
previous    sessions    the    suggestions    have    not    always,    to    put    it 
mildly,  been  for  the  best  interest  of  the  whole  people.     Then,  too, 
the  proceedings  at   the  1911   session  were  open  and  above  board; 
at  previous   sessions   the   proceedings   have  not  always  been   open 
and  above  board. 

20  The  following  committees  were  appointed: 

Conservation,  Including  Water  Power,  Irrigation  and  Reclama- 
tion Districts,  Mineral  Lands — George  C.  Pardee,  Chairman;  Fran- 
cis J.  Heney,  Wm.  Kent,  Chester  H.  Rowell,  S.  C.  Graham,  Sena- 
tor Marshall  Black,  Assemblyman-elect  W.  C.  Clark,  L.  L.  Den- 
nett, Harold  T.  Power,  Ralph  Bull,  Francis  Cutler  and  Milton  T. 
U'Ren. 

Railroad  Commission,  Including,  besides  Platform  Pledges,  Leg- 
islation Prohibiting  Free  Passes — Senator  John  W.  Stetson,  Chair- 
man; John  M.  Eshleman,  Harvey  D.  Loveland,  Alex.  Gordon,  Wm. 
R.  Wheeler,  F.  P.  Gregson,  Assemblyman  P.  F.  Cogswell. 

Reapportionment,    Including    Senate,    Assembly,    Railroad    Com- 


2O  The  New  Order 

These  committees  were  instructed  to  report  at  a  general 
meeting  of  members  of  the  Legislature  to  be  held  in 
San  Francisco  during  the  last  week  preceding  the  open- 
ing of  the  session. 

The  reactionary  press  was  quick  to  belittle  this  open 
meeting  of  members  of  the  Legislature  and  citizens  to 
discuss  subjects  of  legislation.  "There  is  some  specula- 
mission,  Board  of  Equalization — Senator  N.  W.  Thompson,  Chair- 
man; Senator  John  W.  Stetson,  Senator  A.  E.  Boynton,  Assem- 
blyman E.  C.  Hinkle,  E.  A.  Dickson,  Assemblyman  W.  F.  Chand- 
ler, Assemblyman  W.  R.  Flint,  J.  O.  Hayes,  Ralph  Hathorn. 

Election  Laws,  Including  Restoration  of  Australian  Ballot,  Non- 
Partisan  Judiciary,  Short  Ballot,  Simplification  of  Direct  Primary 
Law  Generally,  and  Providing  for  State-wide  Advisory  Vote  on 
United  States  Senators,  Publicity  of  Campaign  Expenses,  Regula- 
tion of  Lobbyists — Senator  A.  E.  Boynton,  Senator  Miguel  Estudillo, 
Senator  Geo.  S.  Walker,  Clinton  White,  Thos.  E.  Haven,  Prof.  Wm. 
Carey  Jones,  Judge  N.  P.  Conrey,  Assemblyman  C.  C.  Young,  Mar- 
shall Stimson,  Paul  Bancroft. 

City  and  County  Government,  Including  "Constitutional  Amend- 
ment No.  1,"  General  Act  for  Commission  Plan  of  Government  for 
Cities,  the  Fee  System,  County  Home-rule,  Uniform  Accounting 
and  Improved  Business  Methods — State  Controller  A.  B.  Nye, 
Chairman;  Attorney- General  U.  S.  Webb,  Senator-elect  Leslie  R. 
Hewitt,  Guy  C.  Earl,  Assemblyman  L.  D.  Bohnett,  Frank  Devlin, 
Prof.  R.  L.  Green. 

Civil  Service  and  Merit  System — Senator  L.  H.  Roseberry, 
Chairman;  Assemblyman-elect  H.  S.  Benedict,  Dr.  F.  B.  Kellogg, 
E.  F.  Adams,  Wm.  A.  Spalding. 

Revision  Criminal  Procedure — W.  J.  Hunsaker,  Chairman;  Curtis 
H.  Lindley,  Senator  Chas.  P.  Cutten,  Attorney-General  U.  S.  Webb, 
Assemblyman  Wm.  Kehoe,  District  Attorney  W.  H.  Donohue, 
Justice  M.  C.  Sloss,  Wm.  Denman,  J.  W.  Wiley. 

Reformatory  for  First  Offenders — Justice  Curtis  D.  Wilbur, 
Chairman;  Chas.  M.  Belshaw,  Assemblyman-elect  H.  W.  Brown, 
Assemblyman  W.  F.  Chandler,  E.  A.  Walcott,  Albert  Bonnheim, 
Judge  Everett  Brown,  James  M.  Oliver,  A.  J.  Pillsbury. 

Suffrage — Senator  Chas.  W.  Bell,  Chairman;  Senator  E.  A. 
Birdsall,  Senator-elect  Lee  C.  Gates,  J.  H.  Braly,  Assemblyman 
H.  G.  Cattell,  Assemblyman-elect  W.  A.  Lamb,  A.  S.  Ormsby. 

Direct  Legislation — Senator- elect  Lee  C.  Gates,  Chairman;  Dr. 
John  R.  Haynes,  Judge  John  D.  Works,  Assemblyman-elect  W.  C. 
Clark,  Assemblyman- elect  C.  H.  Randall,  Milton  T.  U'Ren,  A.  H. 
Elliott. 

Public  Service  Commission — Percy  V.  Long,  Chairman;  Senator- 
elect  Leslie  R.  Hewitt,  W.  R.  Davis,  Chas.  S.  Wheeler,  Assembly- 
man C.  C.  Young. 

Employers'  Liability  Act;  Injunctions  In  Labor  Disputes — H. 
Weinstock,  Chairman;  Senator  E.  K.  Strobridge,  Assemblyman 
A.  H.  Hewitt,  Frank  R.  Devlin,  A.  A.  DeLigne,  J.  W.  Wiley, 
Will  J.  French. 

Before  the  work  of  these  committees  was  concluded  other 
citizens  were  invited  to  become  members,  many  of  whom  did  so. 


The  New  Order  21 

tion,"  languidly  observed  the  San  Francisco  Call,  "as  to 
the  probable  attendance  at  Lissner's  meeting  of  com- 
mittees." 21 

But  from  the  moment  the  meeting  was  called  to  or- 
der, there  was  no  "speculation" ;  its  more-than-looked-for 
success  from  the  standpoint  of  attendance,  was  one  of 
the  many  political  surprises  of  the  year.  Of  the  eighty 
members  who  were  to  sit  in  the  Assembly  of  1911,  sixty- 
two  were  in  attendance.  The  Senate  was  proportionately 
as  well  represented. 

The  laymen  in  attendance  had  come  from  every  part 
of  the  State,  zealous  in  the  cause  which  Governor-elect 
Johnson  was  advocating  so  admirably,  to  take  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  State  of  California  out  of  the  hands  of 
the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Company.22 

21  The  Call  went  to  considerable  pains  to  make  it  appear  that 
the  meeting  was  strictly  partisan  Republican.     In  speaking  of  the 
meeting  The  Call  said:    "Senator  J.  B.  Sanford  of  Ukiah,  although 
not  wanted  because  he  is  a  Democrat,  is  already  in  this  city,  and 
will  be  an   Interested   spectator  when   the   Legislative  Committees 
get  busy." 

The  black  type  is  mine.  On  the  evening  of  the  day  that  the 
article  appeared,  Senator  Sanford  stated  to  the  writer  that  he  had 
received  two  invitations  to  be  present  at  the  meeting  and  partici- 
pate in  its  deliberations.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Democratic  mem- 
bers took  as  active  a  part  in  the  meeting  as  Republican  members. 

22  Politicians  who  had  been  powers  under  the  old  machine  regime 
of  the  Republican  party,  were  seen  about  the  hotel  but  not  heard. 

Eddie  Wolfe,  former  Senate  leader,  strayed  into  the  meeting  not 
unlike  a  lost  sheep  that  gets  into  the  wrong  fold.  There  were  none 
to  greet  him;  none  to  "glad-hand"  him.  He  stood  irresolutely  in 
the  rear  of  the  room  for  a  time. 

"There  are  plenty  of  seats  in  front  of  those  standing  in  the 
rear,"  announced  Chairman  Lissner  graciously. 

But  Senator  Wolfe  did  not  avail  himself  of  the  invitation  "to 
come  forward." 

He  who  had  been  a  force  in  so  many  legislative  gatherings  took 
a  back  seat. 

As  the  Progressives  filed  out  of  the  hall  at  the  close  of  one  of 
the  early  sessions,  a  lonely  figure  was  pointed  out  by  a  one-time 
machine  follower,  whose  efforts  to  get  aboard  the  "bandwagon" 
were  pathetic. 

"Not  a  man  has  spoken  to  him  in  two  hours,"  announced  the 
would-be  bandwagoner  feverishly. 

The  lonely  figure  in  the  lobby  was  Walter  Parker,  a  maker  of 
United  States  Senators  and  other  things  under  the  old-time  regime. 


22  The  New  Order 

But  in  spite  of  the  excellent  attendance  and  the  high 
character  of  those  present,  it  was  apparent  that,  even 
then,  five  days  before  the  Legislature  was  to  convene,  the 
Progressives  were  without  definite  plan  of  action  or 
recognized  leadership ;  that  they  were  in  doubt  over  some 
policies,23  and  in  a  temper  to  divide  over  others.2* 

The  several  committees  read  drafts  of  measures  well 
calculated  to  bring  about  the  reforms  to  which  the  Leg- 

23  The  report  of  the  committee  appointed  to  draft  an  effective 
Direct  Primary  measure  furnishes  excellent  example  of  this.     One 
recommendation  which  was  looked  for,  but  did  not  come,  was  the 
elimination    of    the   extreme    partisan   features   of   the   1909    Direct 
Primary  law.     Chester  H.  Rowell  was  quick  to  note  the  omission. 
He   gave  it  as    his   opinion    that   a   party   should   be  permitted   to 
nominate    any    one    it    chose.    He    showed    that    even    under    the 
cumbersome    Direct    Primary    law    of    1909,    the    Republican    party 
could  nominate  a  Democrat,   and  vice  versa,   by  writing  the  can- 
didate's name  on   the   primary   ballot.     Rowell   insisted   that  what 
was  permitted  by  the  back  door  should  be  permitted  by  the  front. 

The  committee,  instead  of  recommending  the  Oregon  plan  for 
the  election  of  United  States  Senators,  proposed  a  pledge  for 
legislative  candidates  to  abide,  not  by  a  vote  of  the  whole  people, 
but  by  a  vote  of  "their  party." 

Assemblyman-elect  Thomas  F.  Griffin  of  Modesto  showed  the 
weakness  of  the  "within-the-party"  vote  plan  as  suggested  in 
the  committee's  report. 

"The  people  of  California  want,"  Griffin  insisted,  "what  the 
people  of  Oregon  already  have,  the  machinery  by  which  the  Leg- 
islature can  be  morally  committed  to  abide  by  the  popular  choice 
in  electing  United  States  Senators.  If  you  cannot  trust  the  peo- 
ple, who  can  you  trust?  Let  us  give  The  People  of  California 
what  they  are  asking  for,  an  honest  provision  to  commit  the  Leg- 
islature to  abide  by  their  selection  of  United  States  Senator." 

24  From    the    start,    it    became    apparent    that   division   was    to 
come    over    the    proposed     conservation     measures.     Former    Gov- 
ernor George  C.   Pardee,   as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Con- 
servation, announced  the  several  policies,  which  will  be  found  out- 
lined in  the  chapter  on  Conservation.     Col.  E.  A.  Forbes  of  Marys- 
ville,    one   of   the    leaders   in    the    Progressive   movement,    and    who 
has  had  much   to  do  with  water  power  development  in   Northern 
California,   took  the  ground   that  radical  legislation  was  undesira- 
ble because  it  would  tend  to  discourage  capital  finding  investment 
in    California. 

Governor  Pardee  in  reply  to  the  Colonel,  pointed  out  that  in 
our  age,  and  in  all  ages,  capital  has  shown  itself  amply  able  to 
take  care  of  itself.  He  insisted  that  nothing  in  the  proposed  leg- 
islation discouraged  legitimate  enterprise.  But  the  measures  did 
safeguard  the  public  against  the  grabbing  of  the  State's  undevel- 
oped resources  by  speculators,  to  be  put  in  "cold  storage"  and  used 
as  the  basis  of  capitalization  upon  which  we  and  our  children 
and  our  children's  children  must  pay  tribute.  The  aim  of  the 
proposed  conservation  legislation  was  to  prevent  such  grabbing; 


The  New  Order  23 

islature  stood  pledged;  nothing  occurred  that  could  be 
regarded  as  serious  inharmony. 

But  the  drafting  of  an  admirable  measure  does  not 
make  it  a  law.  There  was  at  the  meeting  a  noticeable 
lack  of  intelligent  purpose  and  definite  plan  to  which  all 
stood  committed.  Left  to  drift,  it  was  evident  that  even 
with  a  Progressive  majority  in  each  House,  the  remnants 
of  the  old  machine  in  Senate  and  Assembly  might,  and 
probably  would,  be  able  to  block  reform  legislation,  pre- 
cisely as  had  been  done  at  the  legislative  session  of  1909. 

As  one  keen  observer  of  that  Palace  Hotel  meeting 
put  it,  "The  Legislature  needs  a  'bracer.' ': 

The  "bracer"  was  provided,  quite  unexpectedly  to 
most,  but  from  a  source  from  which  there  was  every 
reason  to  expect  it.  It  came  in  Governor  Johnson's  in- 
augural address.25 

to  hold  the  resources  for  the  good  of  the  whole  people,  thus 
making  it  impossible  for  a  few  to  become  very  rich  because  of 
them,  while  the  many  were  kept  very  poor  because  of  the  grab- 
bing. 

Entirely  honestly  and  within  the  law,  the  ex-Governor  said, 
the  Colonel  and  his  associates  have  grabbed  large  holdings.  The 
aim  of  the  proposed  law,  he  insisted,  was  to  prevent  future  Col- 
onels, and  the  Colonel  in  the  future,  from  being  able  to  grab  the 
State's  resources. 

"Under  the  proposed  law,"  Pardee  contended,  "when  military 
gentlemen  reach  out  for  undeveloped  resources,  they  will  find  a 
limit  placed  upon  their  power  to  appropriate. 

"We  have  nothing  against  you,  Colonel  Forbes,"  Pardee  con- 
cluded pleasantly,  "but  against  your  wicked  associates." 

25  See  Chapter  III,  "The  Key  to  the  1911  Legislature."  Gov- 
ernor Johnson's  inaugural  address  will  be  found  in  full  in  the 
appendix. 


CHAPTER  II. 
ORGANIZATION 

In  the  Organisation  of  the  Legislature,  Officers  of  Both 
Senate  and  Assembly,  Who  Had  Served  During  Ma- 
chine Domination  of  the  Two  Houses,  Session  After 
Session,  Were  Replaced  by  Men  More  in  Sympathy 
With  Progressive  Policies — The  Progressives  Kept 
Control  of  the  Committees. 

Always  attack  your  opponent  at  the  weakest  point, 
has  long  been  a  safe  guiding  motto  closely  followed  by 
the  machine. 

Before  the  organization  of  the  1911  Legislature,  the 
weakest  point  in  the  Progressive  line  was  the  Assembly 
Sergeant-at-Arms  situation.  So  the  activities  of  the  old 
machine  element  were  directed  at  that  point. 

At  the  opening  of  each  session  of  the  Legislature,  six 
important  offices  must  be  filled  immediately,  that  of 
Speaker  of  the  Assembly,  President  pro  tern,  of  the  Sen- 
ate, Secretary  of  the  Senate,  Clerk  of  the  Assembly,  and 
Sergeant-at-Arms  of  Senate  and  of  Assembly. 

Long  before  the  1911  Legislature  convened,  it  was 
evident  that  the  candidacy  of  Milton  L.  Schmitt  of  San 
Francisco 26  for  Speaker  of  the  Assembly  was  without 
effective  support,  and  that  A.  H.  Hewitt  of  Yuba  City 

26  For  Schmltt's  record  at  the  session  of  1911,  see  Assembly 
table  in  the  appendix.  His  record  for  the  1909  session  will  be 
found  in  the  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909." 


Organization  25 

would  be  elected  to  that  position  practically  without  op- 
position. Quite  as  evident  was  it,  that  Eddie  Wolfe  of 
San  Francisco,  who  had  long  served  as  President  pro  tern, 
of  the  Senate,  had  no  chance  for  re-election,  and  that 
Senator  Boynton  of  Oroville  would  be  elected  to  succeed 
him.  Lewis  A.  Hilborn  of  San  Francisco  and  Clio  Lloyd 
of  Santa  Barbara,  who  had,  under  the  old  order,  served 
as  Secretary  of  the  Senate  and  Clerk  of  the  Assembly 
respectively,  did  not  even  permit  their  names  to  be  pre- 
sented for  consideration. 

In  the  same  way,  J.  Louis  Martin  of  Oakland,  who 
was  all  but  regarded  as  a  fixture  as  Sergeant-at-Arms  of 
the  Senate,  did  not  make  any  open  effort  to  hold  his 
place.  For  these  several  positions,  the  Progressives  not 
only  had  candidates,  but  had  the  votes  to  elect  them. 

The  situation  in  the  Assembly  when  it  came  to  the 
election  of  Sergeant-at-Arms,  was  by  no  means  so  cer- 
tain. John  T.  Stafford  of  Sacramento,  who  under  the 
old  order  had  long  served  as  Sergeant-at-Arms  of  the 
Assembly,  became  a  candidate  for  re-election. 

During  the  years  Stafford  had  served  the  Lower 
House,  he  had  been  an  accommodating  officer.  In  a 
thousand  and  one  ways  he  had  made  the  work  of  the 
members  easy  for  them.  Even  some  of  the  most  extreme 
Progressives  had  a  kindly  feeling  for  Stafford.  A  num- 
ber of  these  Progressives  had  been  advanced  to  the  Sen- 
ate, where,  by  the  new  turn  of  the  political  wheel,  they 
found  themselves  leaders.  When  they  learned  that  Staf- 
ford sought  re-election,  several  of  them  endorsed  his 
candidacy. 

Stafford,  on  his  part,  made  an  active  campaign.     At 


26  Organization 

the  Palace  Hotel  meeting  he  was  on  hand  soliciting  sup- 
port, and  seemed  to  be  making  good  progress.  His  elec- 
tion, it  was  recognized,  however,  would  be  taken  as  evi- 
dence of  the  inability  of  the  Progressives  to  hold  their 
forces  together.  On  this  basis,  Stafford's  candidacy  as- 
sumed importance  as  the  first  display  of  strength  of  the 
opposing  forces.  At  the  Palace  Hotel  meeting,  the  gen- 
eral impression  was  that  Stafford  would  be  elected.  His 
opponent  was  E.  H.  Whyte  of  Sacramento. 

The  test  came  in  the  Assembly  Republican  caucus. 
Stafford  was  defeated  for  caucus  nomination  by  a  vote 
of  39  to  30,27  Whyte  being  nominated.  L.  B.  Mallory  of 
Los  Gatos,  a  strong  Progressive,  was  named  for  Chief 
Clerk.  A.  H.  Hewitt  got  the  caucus  nomination  for 
Speaker  as  a  matter  of  course.28  Schmitt  did  not  even 
make  a  showing.  The  Progressive  control  of  the  Lower 
House  was  shown  to  be  complete. 

The  success  of  the  Progressives  in  organizing  the 
Senate  was  no  less  pronounced  than  it  had  been  in  the 
Assembly.  The  Republican  Senate  caucus  organized  by 


27  The   caucus    was,    of   course,    held   behind   closed    doors,    and 
report    of    the    proceeding    must    be    taken    at    second    hand.     But 
the    following   vote   for    Sergeant-at-Arms    was   given    out   at    the 
time  as  the  line-up  of  the  caucus: 

For  Whyte — Beckett,  Benedict,  Bliss,  Bohnett,  Butler,  Callag- 
han,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Cogswell,  Farwell,  Fitzgerald,  Flint, 
Gaylord,  Hamilton,  Harlan,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jasper,  Joel, 
Judson,  Kehoe,  Kennedy,  Lamb,  Lynch,  March,  McDonald,  Mott, 
Preisker,  Randall,  Rogers  of  Alameda,  Smith,  Stevenot,  Suther- 
land, Telfer,  Tibbitts,  Wyllie,  Young— 39. 

For  Stafford — Beatty,  Bennink,  Bishop,  Brown,  Coghlan,  Cronin, 
Crosby,  Cunningham,  Denegri,  Feeley,  Freeman,  Gerdes,  Griffiths, 
Hayes,  Held,  Jones,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Malone,  McGowen, 
Mullally,  Nolan,  Rimlinger,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco,  Rosendale, 
Rutherford,  Ryan,  Sbragla,  Schmitt,  Walker,  Williams — 30. 

28  On    the   floor  of   the   Assembly,   Hewitt's   election  was   made 
unanimous,   the  Democratic  caucus  nominee,   J.   W.   Stuckenbruck, 
withdrawing  his   candidacy  In   Hewitt's  favor. 


Organization  27 

electing  Charles  W.  Bell  of  Pasadena  Chairman.29  Sena- 
tor Boynton  was  nominated  for  President  pro  tem. ;  Wal- 
ter N.  Parrish  of  Stockton,  Secretary,  and  Joseph  L. 
Coughlin  of  Oakland,  Sergeant-at-Arms.  There  was 
nothing  of  the  old  regime  left  in  the  Senate  organization, 
after  the  Republican  caucus  had  completed  its  labors. 
The  Lincoln-Roosevelt  branch  of  the  Republican  party 
had  demonstrated  that  it  was  in  complete  control  of  both 
Houses.30  Not  only  this,  but  the  anti-machine  Demo- 
crats in  the  Senate  stated  openly  that  they  were  pre- 
29  Under  the  old  regime,  Senator  Bell  was  denied  even  a  place 
in  the  1907,  and  the  1909,  Republican  Senate  caucus,  although  at 
the  session  of  1909  he  lacked  two  votes  only  of  being  admitted. 
See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909." 

Some  of  the  explanations  of  those  who  in  1909  voted  to  deny 
Bell  admittance  to  the  caucus,  are,  in  view  of  what  has  occurred 
since,  very  amusing.  For  example,  Senator  Leroy  A.  Wright,  in 
the  San  Diego  Union  of  August  14,  1910,  said  in  explanation  of 
his  vote  on  this  issue: 

"I  did  vote  to  keep  Bell  out  of  the  Republican  caucus,  because 
he  was  not  elected  as  such  and  was  not  entitled  to  participate  in 
those  matters  political  which  came  before  it." 

With  the  Progressives  in  control,  not  only  was  Senator  Bell 
admitted  to  the  caucus,  but  he  was  elected  chairman  of  the  cau- 
cus, and  leader  of  the  Republican  majority  on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate. 

so  The  contempt  with  which  the  Lincoln-Roosevelt  League  or 
progressive  branch  of  the  Republican  party  was  held  by  the  "Reg- 
ulars" is  well  illustrated  by  an  incident  in  the  Assembly  of  1909. 

Assemblyman  McClellan  was  found  to  be  absent  on  one  occa- 
sion when  his  vote  was  needed.  He  was  brought  in  under  call  of 
the  House.  As  is  customary  in  such  cases,  McClellan  was  taken 
before  the  bar  for  sentence,  a  sentence  which  is  never  imposed, 
the  lenient  Legislators  invariably  granting  excuse.  Speaker  Stan- 
ton  was  in  the  chair,  and  apparently  in  a  facetious  mood. 

Stanton  announced  that  he  would  impose  the  heaviest  penalty 
he  could  think  of.  He  accordingly  sentenced  McClellan  to  join 
the  Lincoln-Roosevelt  League.  (Cheers  and  laughter  from  the 
machine  members.) 

Assemblyman  Transue  thereupon  took  the  floor,  and  with  much 
display,  insisted  that  the  proposed  punishment  was  "cruel  and  un- 
usual," and  would  not  stand  the  test  of  the  courts.  (More  laugh- 
ter and  cheers.) 

And  yet,  within  two  years  the  Lincoln-Roosevelt  League,  so 
despised  by  the  old  machine  element,  was  to  sweep  the  State, 
secure  control  of  the  machinery  of  the  Republican  party,  elect 
a  Governor,  and  name  a  Legislature  in  which  the  merry  Stanton, 
the  witty  Transue  and  the  delinquent  McClellan,  and  very  few 
of  those  who  roared  their  laughing  approval  of  the  Stanton- 
Transue  witticisms  had  membership  or  place. 


28  Organization 

pared  to  work,  as  they  had  worked  two  years  before, 
side  by  side  with  the  Progressive  Republicans  in  support 
of  those  Progressive  policies  to  which  both  parties  stood 
pledged.31 

The  next  step  in  both  Houses  was  committee  organ- 
ization. The  appointment  of  the  Senate  committees  had 
been  left  to  Lieutenant-Governor  Wallace ;  the  Assembly 
committees  to  Speaker  Hewitt. 

The  lesson  which  the  machine  had  forced  upon  the 
Progressives  in  1909,  namely,  that  control  of  the  com- 
mittees means  control  of  the  Legislature,  was  not  for- 
gotten. While  those  who  had  opposed  Progressive  poli- 
cies in  1909  32  were  not  treated  with  the  intolerance  which 
governed  the  machine  when  in  power  in  that  organiza- 
tion's treatment  of  the  Progressives,  nevertheless,  the 
stalwarts  of  the  old  machine  found  themselves  in  the 
minority  on  every  committee. 

Senator  Bell  was  made  chairman  of  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Public  Morals.  This  was  an  instance  of  re- 
tributory  justice,  equaled  only  by  the  election  of  Bell  to 
the  chairmanship  of  the  Senate  Republican  caucus. 

For  years,  the  principal  office  of  the  Senate  Commit- 
tee on  Public  Morals  had  been  to  block  such  legislation 
as  might  affect  adversely  the  race  track  gambling  inter- 
si  The  attitude  of  the  anti-machine  Democratic  Senators  was 
well  stated  by  Senator  A.  E.  Campbell  of  San  Luis  Obispo:  "The 
Republicans,"  said  Campbell,  "have  stolen  our  Democratic  thun- 
der. But  I  don't  care  who  gets  the  credit  for  the  reforms,  so 
long  as  the  people  get  the  reforms." 

32  Senator  Wolfe  was  given  the  chairmanship  of  the  Committee 
on  Public  Buildings  and  Grounds;  Senator  Wright  was  made  chair- 
man of  the  Committee  on  Federal  Relations.  Wolfe  was  even 
given  a  place  on  the  important  Committee  on  Rules.  Contrast  this 
treatment  with  that  accorded  Senator  Bell,  the  Progressive  Repub- 
lican, who,  with  the  machine  in  control  at  the  sessions  of  1907 
and  1909,  was  given  no  chairmanship,  and  was  even  denied  ad- 
mittance to  the  Republican  caucus. 


Organization  29 

ests.  In  1907,  an  anti-Race  Track  Gambling  bill  passed 
the  Assembly  but  was  "held-up"  in  the  Senate  Public 
Morals  committee.  Senator  Bell  had  asked  that  the  bill 
be  returned  to  the  Senate  for  action.  The  organization 
leaders,  that  year  in  complete  control  of  the  Senate,  con- 
temptuously denied  Bell's  petition.  These  leaders,  two 
years  later,  in  1909,  sneered  at  Bell's  efforts  on  behalf 
of  the  passage  of  a  Local  Option  bill.  In  1911,  Bell  was 
made  chairman  of  the  Public  Morals  Committee.  It  was 
then  amusing  to  observe  the  gamblers,  their  agents  in 
and  out  of  the  Legislature,  associates  and  friends,  who 
had  ridiculed  "Reformer  Bell"  in  1907-9,  as  they  courted 
Senator  Bell,  chairman  of  the  important  Senate  Commit- 
tee on  Public  Morals. 

Associated  with  Bell  on  the  Public  Morals  Committee 
were  Senators  Thompson,  Black  and  Cartwright,  who 
had  at  previous  sessions  opposed  the  machine's  stand  on 
moral  issues,  and  Senator  Avey,  who  was  serving  his 
first  term.  Senator  Avey  had  been  elected  as  a  Progres- 
sive. 

In  the  regular  course  of  legislative  business  the  ques- 
tion of  repealing  the  Wright  Railroad  Regulation  law 
which  was  passed  in  1909,  would  be  referred  to  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Corporations.  The  practical  sub- 
stitute for  the  Wright  law  would  also  go  to  the  Cor- 
porations Committee.  The  importance  of  the  Corpora- 
tions Committee,  therefore,  can  scarcely  be  over-esti- 
mated.33 

Lieutenant-Governor  Wallace  selected  as  chairman  of 


33  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,"  Chapter 
XIII,  for  the  treatment  accorded  the  Stetson  Railroad  Regulation 
bill  by  the  Senate  Corporations  Committee  of  that  session. 


30  Organization 

the  Committee  Senator  Roseberry,  who  had  been  one  of 
the  most  active  Progressives  who  opposed  the  machine 
members  at  the  session  of  1909.  Senator  Stetson,  author 
of  the  Stetson  bill  of  1909,  was  made  ranking  member 
of  the  committee.  The  other  members  of  the  committee 
were  Larkins,  Welch,  Burnett,  Gates,  Hans,  Beban,  Cam- 
inetti,  Holohan  and  Juilliard. 

Gates  and  Larkins  were  new  men  but  had  been  elected 
as  Progressives.  Caminetti,  Holohan  and  Juilliard  had 
been  identified  with  the  Progressive  element  in  1909. 
Beban  and  Hans,  in  the  Assembly  of  that  year,  had  sided 
with  the  "organization"  in  practically  every  contest.  As 
to  Welch  and  Burnett,  while  both  sided  against  the  effect- 
ive Stetson  bill  at  the  session  of  1909,  Burnett  stated  on 
the  floor  of  the  Senate  before  the  1909  session  closed  that 
his  support  of  the  Wright  bill  as  against  the  Stetson  bill 
was  due  to  misunderstanding. 

While  the  Senate  Corporations  Committee  was  clearly 
dominated  by  the  good-government  element,  the  old 
"organization"  could  not  reasonably  claim  that  the  "regu- 
lars" had  not  been  given  representation. 

The  selection  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Election 
Laws  was  quite  as  important  as  that  on  Corporations.  In 
this  committee  was  to  be  fought  the  battle  for  necessary 
amendment  of  the  Direct  Primary  law,  for  practical  plan 
for  popular  nomination  of  United  States  Senators  by 
State-wide  vote,  restoration  of  the  Australian  ballot,  and 
other  election  reforms. 

The  committee  appointed  by  the  Lieutenant-Governor 
consisted  of  Senators  Estudillo,  chairman;  Boynton, 


Organization  31 

Walker,  Wright,  Hare  and  Thompson,  old  members,  and 
Larkins,  Tyrrell,  Hewitt,  Gates  and  Juilliard,  new  mem- 
bers. 

Of  the  new  members,  Juilliard  had  a  record  as  an 
Assemblyman.  At  the  session  of  1909,  he  had  voted  for 
the  practical,  State-wide  plan  for  the  selection  of  United 
States  Senators,  for  the  Denman  bill  to  take  the  judiciary 
out  of  politics,  and  for  the  Holohan  bill  that  struck  the 
party  circle  from  the  election  ballot. 

The  remaining  four  of  the  five  new  members,  Larkins, 
Tyrrell,  Hewitt  and  Gates,  had  been  elected  as  Progres- 
sives, and  were  counted  safe  for  general  reform  of  the 
election  laws. 

Of  the  six  members  of  the  Committee  who  served  in 
the  Senate  of  1909,  Estudillo,  Boynton,  Walker  and 
Thompson  voted  for  the  practical,  State-wide  plan  for 
naming  the  Federal  Senator.  Wright  and  Hare  voted 
against  the  State-wide  plan,  and  for  the  district  advisory 
substitute,  the  "machine  substitute,"  as  it  was  called. 
Senator  Wright,  as  has  been  seen,  had  the  distinction 
of  being  the  only  Senator  whose  term  expired  in  1910, 
who  had,  at  the  session  of  1909,  voted  for  the  district 
advisory  substitute,  to  be  re-elected.  All  of  the  six  hold- 
over Senators  had  voted  in  1909  to  remove  the  party 
circle  from  the  election  ballot. 

The  important  Finance  Committee,  to  which  every 
member  who  has  an  appropriation  bill  to  put  through 
must  appeal,  was  headed  by  Senator  Cutten,  an  active 
Progressive.  On  this  committee  was  one  new  member 
only,  Senator  Hewitt,  a  Progressive  from  Los  Angeles. 


32  Organization 

Of  the  twenty  members  other  than  Hewitt,  fifteen84  at 
the  1909  session  had  voted  almost  as  a  unit  for  Progres- 
sive policies.  The  other  five 35  were  usually  found  in 
opposition  to  the  first-named  group. 

Following  time-honored  custom,  every  attorney  in  the 
Senate  was  made  a  member  of  the  Judiciary  Committee. 
There  were  twenty  attorneys,  just  half  the  Senate,  so 
the  committee  consisted  of  twenty  members.36 

But  at  the  1911  session,  the  ranking  members  of  the 
Senate  Judiciary  Committee  were  Progressives.  The  re- 
verse had  been  the  case  at  the  session  of  1909.37 

The  Judiciary  Committee  is  always  important,  for  to 
it  is  referred  every  measure  in  which  a  legal  point  is 
involved.  But  in  1911  it  became  of  more  than  ordinary 
importance  for  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  was  to  be  re- 
ferred the  proposed  Initiative  and  Referendum,  and  Re- 
call amendments  to  the  State  Constitution. 

Generally  speaking,  the  entire  Senate  committee  38  or- 
ganization was  on  the  same  basis  as  that  of  the  five  com- 

84  Cutten,  Black,  Thompson,  Boynton,  Bell,  Walker,  Strobridge, 
Blrdsall,  Rush,  Roseberry,  Curtin,  Caminettl,  Cartwrlght,  San- 
ford  and  Holohan — 15. 

35  Burnett,   Kurd,  Welch,   Bills  and  Wolfe. 

36  The    Handbook  of    the    California    Legislature,    1911,    gives 
twenty-one   members  on   the   committee,    including    Senator   Bird- 
sail.     But  Birdsall  is  not  an  attorney  and  was   not  a  member  of 
the   committee. 

87  Wolfe  and  Wright  were  the  ranking  members  after  the 
chairman,  on  the  1909  Senate  Judiciary  Committee.  In  1911,  these 
two  gentlemen  numbered  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  on  the  list. 

38  The  lobby  representatives  of  Organized  Labor  expressed  dis- 
satisfaction with  the  personnel  of  the  Committee  on  Labor,  Capi- 
tal and  Immigration.  Nevertheless,  this  committee  made  favora- 
ble report  on  the  Eight  Hour  bill  for  women.  The  committee,  as 
originally  appointed,  consisted  of  Larkins,  chairman;  Cutten,  Mar- 
tinelli,  Boynton,  Hurd,  Wright  and  Juilliard.  Later  in  the  session 
Boynton  gave  way  on  the  committee  for  Senator  Bryant  of  San 
Francisco. 


Organization  33 

mittees  considered,  which,  by  the  way,  are  the  most 
important  Senate  committees.  The  Progressives  were 
thus  in  complete  control  of  the  entire  Senate  organization. 

In  naming  dependable  committees  in  the  Lower 
House,  the  Progressives  were  confronted  with  greater 
difficulties  than  in  the  Senate.  Speaker  Hewitt  had  com- 
paratively little  to  guide  him.  The  Assembly  at  the 
opening  of  a  legislative  session  is  an  unknown  quantity. 
The  1911  Assembly  was  no  exception  to  the  rule.  To  be 
sure,  twenty-three  of  the  eighty  members  had  served  in 
the  Legislature  of  1909,  and  several  others  had  served  at 
previous  sessions.  But  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  mem- 
bers were  without  records  by  which  they  could  be  judged. 

Out  of  this  untried  material,  with  its  leaven  of  old 
members,  the  majority  of  whom  had  good  legislative  rec- 
ords, Speaker  Hewitt  was  called  upon  to  form  his  com- 
mittees.39 

At  the  opening  of  the  session  much  interest  centered 
on  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Common  Carriers,  for  to 
this  committee  was  to  be  referred  the  proposed  Railroad 
Regulation  measure.40 

Eleven  members  made  up  the  committee.  Of  the 
eleven,  four  had  served  in  the  session  of  1909.  Flint, 
Telfer,  Gerdes  and  Mendenhall. 

These  four  men  were  all  identified  with  the  Progres- 
sives during  the  1909  session.  On  railroad  measures 

39  Speaker  Hewitt   did   not   have   the   advantage   of  the  careful 
canvass  of  the  Assembly  which  the  old  machine  element  used  to 
make  even  before  the  November  elections.     The  machine  formerly 
had   men    travel   up  and   down    the   State    "sizing   up"    prospective 
Assemblymen    as    committee   timber. 

40  The  members  of  the  1911  Assembly  Common   Carriers   Com- 
mittee   were:     Preisker,    chairman;    Bliss,    Crosby,    Denegri,    Flint, 
Gerdes,   Hinshaw,   Joel,   Mendenhall,   Smith,  Telfer. 

2 


34  Organization 

they  voted,  when  there  was  division,  with  the  anti- 
machine  element  on  every  issue. 

The  seven  remaining  members  of  the  committee  were 
new  men  with  records  yet  to  be  made.  But  the  majority 
of  them  had  been  elected  as  Progressives. 

Scarcely  less  important  was  the  Committee  on  Elec- 
tion Laws.  This  committee  was  to  deal  with  the  res- 
toration of  the  Australian  ballot,  with  the  simplification 
of  the  Direct  Primary  law,  and  the  taking  of  the  judi- 
ciary out  of  politics. 

The  committee  consisted  of  fifteen  members,41  five  of 
whom  had  served  in  the  session  of  1909.  Of  the  five  old 
members,  Young,  who  was  named  chairman,  had,  at  the 
session  of  1909,  introduced  a  bill  for  the  complete  res- 
toration of  the  Australian  ballot.  Three  of  the  remain- 
ing old  members  had,  at  the  previous  session,  voted  for 
the  several  measures  proposed  for  the  reform  of  the 
election  laws. 

The  fifth  of  the  members  who  had  served  in  the 
Legislature  of  1909,  Beatty,  did  not  have  so  clear  a 
score  to  his  credit,  having  voted  for  the  machine's  amend- 
ment to  the  1909  Direct  Primary  bill,  which  denied  The 
People  a  State-wide  vote  for  United  States  Senator.  On 
the  other  hand,  Beatty  supported  the  1909  measures  to 
restore  the  Australian  ballot  to  something  like  its  original 
effectiveness,  and  to  take  the  judiciary  out  of  politics. 

The  change  in  the  Assembly  Judiciary  Committee  was 
the  most  radical  of  the  Assembly  reorganization.  At 
previous  sessions,  this  committee  was  known  as  the 

41  The  members  of  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Election  Laws 
were:  Young,  chairman;  Beatty,  Benedict,  Bohnett,  Clark,  Gerdes, 
Gaylord,  Lyon,  Mott,  Preisker,  Polsley,  Rogers  of  Alameda,  Ran- 
dall, Rosendale,  Stevenot. 


Organization  35 

"graveyard  of  good  bills."  Any  measure  which  the 
"machine"  wanted  "killed"  was  sent  to  the  Assembly 
Judiciary  Committee  and  that  was  the  last  of  it. 

The  1911  committee,42  however,  was  headed  by  As- 
semblyman William  Kehoe  of  Humboldt,  a  man  of  the 
highest  standard  of  citizenship. 

At  the  session  of  1909,  Kehoe,  because  of  his  refusal 
"to  take  program,"  was  made  the  butt  of  the  curious 
humor  of  the  "machine"  element.  But  his  elevation  to 
the  head  of  the  committee,  second  in  importance,  if  not 
the  most  important  of  the  Lower  House,  was  another  in- 
stance of  retributory  justice  scarcely  less  pronounced  than 
the  elevation  of  Senator  Bell  to  the  head  of  the  Senate 
Republican  caucus. 

Another  committee  in  which  much  interest  was  taken 
was  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Public  Morals.43  This 
committee  was  to  deal  with  three  important  measures,  the 
passage  of  which,  while  they  had  not  been  touched  upon 
in  any  of  the  party  platforms,  was  nevertheless  justly 
held  to  be  part  of  the  work  of  the  reform  Legislature. 
The  bills  in  question  were  the  revised  anti-Race  Track 
Gambling  bill,  the  Local  Option  bill  and  the  anti-Nickel- 
in-the-Slot  bill. 

Six  of  the  nine  members  of  this  committee,  Cronin,44 

42  The    members    of    the    1911    Assembly    Judiciary    Committee 
were:       Kehoe,     chairman;     Beatty,     Benedict,     Bishop,     Bohnett, 
Brown,  Clark,  Coghlan,  Cronin,  Freeman,  Griffin,  Held,  Joel,  Jones, 
Harlan,  Preisker,   Rogers,  Rosendale,  Rutherford,   Sutherland,  Wil- 
son. 

43  The    members    of    the    1911    Assembly   Committee    on    Public 
Morals    were:     Cronin,    chairman;    Cattell,    Kehoe,    March,    Rogers, 
Sbragia,    Stuckenbruck,   Wyllie,    Young. 

44  Cronin,   while  by  no  means  a  Prohibitionist,   had  been  given 
good    reason    to    distrust    the    opponents    of   Local    Option.     These 
opponents,   without  any  leason  that  a  sane  man  could  determine, 
made  a  vicious  fight  to  prevent  Cronin's  re-election  to  the  Assem- 


36  Organization 

Cattell,  Kehoe,  Stuckenbruck,  Wyllie  and  Young,  had 
served  in  the  1909  Assembly ;  Wyllie  had  introduced  the 
Local  Option  bill  of  that  session,  which,  however,  was 
not  permitted  to  come  to  vote.  The  six  members  had 
supported  the  1909  anti-Race  Track  Gambling  bill,  and, 
so  far  as  they  had  been  given  opportunity  to  vote,  had 
clean  scores  on  moral  issues. 

Direct  Legislation,  for  which  its  proponents  could  not 
get  a  hearing  before  the  Assembly  committees  in  1909, 
was  at  the  session  of  1911  deemed  of  sufficient  importance 
to  be  given  a  special  committee.  The  committee  consisted 
of  seven  members,45  of  whom  three,  Cattell,  Kehoe  and 
Young,  had  served  in  the  session  of  1909.  The  three  at 
the  1909  session  were  recorded  on  test  questions,  every 
time  on  the  side  of  progressive  policies.  As  for  the  four 
new  members  on  the  committee,  even  at  the  opening  of 
the  session,  they  were  recognized  as  heartily  in  sympathy 
with  progressives  policies,  including  the  Initiative,  Refer- 
endum and  Recall. 

The  important  committee  on  Ways  and  Means,46  in 
which  originates  the  General  Appropriation  bill,  and 
which  passes  upon  every  measure  carrying  an  appropria- 
tion, consisted  at  the  1911  session  of  twenty-one  members. 

bly.  Cronln  had  been,  as  are  tens  of  thousands  of  others,  a  man 
on  the  fence  on  the  liquor  question,  until  the  liquor  interests 
pushed  him  off  on  to  the  Local  Option  side.  By  methods  that  are 
astonishing  to  say  the  least,  the  liquor  interests  are  pushing  other 
men  now  on  the  fence  on  to  the  Local  Option  side,  by  scores  and 
hundreds  every  day. 

45  The    members    of    the    1911    Assembly    Committee    on   Direct 
Legislation  were:     Tibbits,  chairman;  Cattell,  Clark,  Judson,  Kehoe, 
Walsh    and    Young. 

46  The  members  of  the  1911  Ways  and  Means  Committee  were: 
Cogswell,    chairman;    Beckett,    Chandler,    Cunningham,    Fitzgerald, 
Flint,    Gerdes,   Griffiths,   Guill,   Hayes,    Hinkle,   Hinshaw,    Kennedy, 
Lynch,  McGowen,  Malone,  Schmitt,   Slater,  Telfer,  Wyllie,   Young. 


Organization  37 

Of  the  twenty-one,  eleven47  had  legislative  records.  Of 
these  eleven,  Chandler  had  served  in  the  session  of  1907, 
and  had  stood  for  progressive  policies  at  a  time  when 
Progressives  were  as  few  in  the  California  Legislature  as 
were  avowed  machineites  at  the  session  of  1911;  Cogs- 
well, Flint,  Gerdes,  Hinkle,  Wyllie,  Young  and  Telfer 
had  made  records  as  Progressives  at  the  1909  session; 
Hayes  and  Griffiths,  in  most  instances  had  voted  with  the 
Progressives,  while  Schmitt,  the  eleventh  of  the  old  mem- 
bers to  be  given  place  on  the  1911  Ways  and  Means 
Committee,  had  cast  his  lot,  and  usually  his  vote,  with 
the  old  "organization  element."  The  Progressives  were 
generally  admitted  to  be  safely  in  control  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Ways  and  Means. 

The  several  Assembly  committees  that  have  been  con- 
sidered may  be  regarded  as  the  strategic  committees  of 
the  Lower  House. 

The  success  which  the  Progressives  had  had  in  or- 
ganizing Senate  and  Assembly  had  demonstrated  that 
that  faction  had  safe  majority  in  each  house.  With  the 
control  of  the  committee  organization  of  both  Houses,  the 
Progressives  were  in  a  position  to  carry  out  every  pledge 
that  had  been  made  to  The  People. 

But  at  the  outset,  the  question  was  raised,  How  far 
shall  the  Legislature  go?  Division  developed  on  every 
important  issue.  All  the  Progressives,  for  example,  advo- 
cated the  adoption  of  the  Recall  Amendment,  but  some  of 
the  best  of  the  Progressives  were  for  excluding  the  ju- 
diciary from  the  terms  of  the  measure.  The  Progressives 

47  Chandler,    Cogswell,    Flint,    Gerdes,    Hayes,    Hinkle,    Wyllie, 
Young,    Telfer,    Griffiths,    Schmitt. 


38  Organization 

were  agreed  that  United  States  Senators  should  be  nomi- 
nated by  State-wide  vote,  and  such  nominations  made 
morally  binding  upon  the  several  members  of  the  Legis- 
lature. But  not  a  few  of  the  Progressives  stopped  short 
of  the  Oregon  plan,  insisting  that  the  nomination  for 
Senators  should  be  confined  to  the  several  parties,  and  no 
general  popular  vote  provided.48  All  Progressives  were 
agreed  on  the  advisability  of  the  Short  Ballot,  but  there 
were  differences  of  opinion  on  the  question  of  how  far 
the  Short  Ballot  should  apply.  Senators  Larkins,  for  ex- 
ample, would  have  had  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State 
continued  elective.  The  Progressives  were  for  conserva- 
tion, but  badly  divided  on  the  question  of  the  extent  to 
which  the  conservation  measures  should  be  made  to  go. 
Similar  division  complicated  practically  every  issue. 

All  this,  of  course,  led  to  confusion.  It  was  evident 
that  the  old  "organization,"  even  with  the  Progressives 
in  control  of  both  Houses,  might  yet  be  able  to  employ 
the  division  on  the  important  questions  to  block  good 
legislation,  as  had  been  done  in  1909.  Some  positive  note 
from  a  recognized  leader  was  required  to  pull  together 


48  As  a  matter  of  fact  neither  the  Lincoln-Roosevelt  League 
nor  the  Republican  party  as  controlled  by  the  Progressives,  nor 
yet  the  Democratic  party,  was  committed  to  the  Oregon  plan. 
The  last  expression  of  the  League  on  the  subject  will  be  found  in 
its  platform  for  the  1910  fight,  adopted  at  the  League's  meeting 
held  at  Oakland,  Nov.  22,  1909.  The  provision  in  point  read: 
"We  urge  that  the  existing  primary  election  law  be  so  amended  as 
to  afford  a  State-wide  advisory  expression  of  party  opinion  as  to 
their  (United  States  Senators)  election." 

The  Republican  (Progressive)  platform  for  1910  committed  the 
party  to  "such  a  revision  of  the  primary  law  of  the  State  as  shall 
afford  a  State-at-large  advisory  vote  as  to  the  election  of  United 
States  Senators."  The  Democratic  platform  was  as  ambiguous. 
It  pledged  the  party  to  "a  simplified  Direct  Primary  law  and  the 
selection  of  United  States  Senators  by  the  direct  primary  vote  of 
The  People." 


Organization  39 

the  Progressives,  who  had  little  to  fear  from  without,  but 
much  to  fear  from  within  their  movement. 

This  was  furnished  in  the  "bracer"  referred  to  in  the 
last  chapter,  Governor  Johnson's  inaugural  message  to 
the  Legislature. 


CHAPTER  III. 
THE  KEY  TO  THE  1911  LEGISLATURE." 

Governor  Johnston's  Inaugural  Address  Brought  Squarely 
Before  the  Legislature  the  Reforms  to  Which  Both 
Parties  Were  Pledged,  and  Left  No  Room  for  Dodg- 
ing or  for  Quibbling — The  Effect  Was  to  Define 
Definitely  the  Policies  of  the  Progressive  Administra- 
tion, and  Draw  the  Line  Sharply  Between  Progressives 
and  Reactionaries. 

On  January  4,  1899,  the  inaugural  "conclave"  that 
was  to  escort  Governor-elect  Gage  to  the  State  Capitol, 
formed  in  front  of  the  old  Golden  Eagle  Hotel  at  Sacra- 
mento. There  has  been  nothing  like  that  conclave  since, 
and  probably  never  will  be  in  California  again.  The  pro- 
ceedings of  that  day  showed  the  tinsel  of  the  old  "ma- 
chine" order  at  its  worst. 

Several  military  gentlemen  in  uniform  participated. 
Some  of  them  rode  on  horses  with  which  they  were  quite 
unfamiliar.  Others  rode  in  carriages.  One  of  them 
tripped  sadly  as  he  descended  the  steps  from  the  hotel. 
The  Governor-elect  entered  a  carriage;  a  small  boy  gig- 
gled ;  the  procession  started. 

No  circus  parade  ever  made  cheaper  entrance  upon  a 
community.  The  "conclave,"  however,  was  forecast  of 

49  Part  of  this  chapter  follows  closely  an  editorial  article, 
"Governor  Johnson's  Message  Strong  for  Popular  Rule,"  which  the 
writer  prepared  for  the  Sacramento  Bee,  and  which  appeared  in 
the  issue  of  that  publication  for  January  4,  1911. 


The  Key  to  the  1911  Legislature         41 

the  character  of  the  inaugural  address — full  of  sound  and 
fury,  signifying  nothing — which  Governor  Gage  was  to 
roar  out  a  few  minutes  later;  was  forecast  of  the  bar- 
ren legislative  session  which  had  convened  two  days 
before;50  and  suggested  the  pompous,  ineffective  admin- 
istration which,  four  years  later,  was  to  end  so  inglori- 
ously51  for  the  executive,  who  seemed  to  take  the  curious 
ride  to  his  inaugural  seriously. 

Twelve  years  later,  almost  to  a  day,  January  3,  1911, 
Hiram  W.  Johnson52  was  inaugurated  Governor  of  Cali- 
fornia. There  was  no  gilt  braid,53  no  military  gentlemen 
on  difficult  horses — and  above  all  there  was  no  giggling 
from  small  boys  or  anybody  else. 

Governor-elect  Johnson,  earnest  of  purpose,  resolute 
and  with  a  definite  policy — as  a  plain  American  gentle- 
man— walked  to  the  Capitol  unattended  by  military  es- 

so  The  session  of  the  Burns-Grant  Senatorial  deadlock. 

51  Gage   made  a  desperate   fight  for  a   second   term,   but  went 
down   to  smashing  defeat  at  the  Republican   State  Convention  of 
1902. 

52  Theodore  Roosevelt,    in   his  Los   Angeles   address,   March   22, 
1911,    said    of   Governor    Johnson:     "Mr.    Johnson    belongs    to    that 
group    of    reformers   who    remain    reformers    of    exactly   the   same 
stripe    after    being    elected.     Mr.    Johnson    has    made    good    every 
promise  to  which  he  committed  himself  upon  the  stump,   and  he, 
therefore,    has    not   only   rendered    a   great    service    to    California, 
he  has  rendered  a  great  service  to  the  nation  at  large." 

53  Governor  Johnson's   attitude   toward   the   shoddy  of  military 
formality  was  well  illustrated  by  an  incident  which  occurred  early 
in   the   session. 

Johnson  was  talking  to  friends  in  the  lobby  of  the  Sacramento 
hotel  when  he  was  approached  by  a  dapper  young  man  in  the 
uniform  of  a  Lieutenant.  The  uniformed  one  clicked  his  heels 
together  and  saluted. 

The  Governor  gazed  upon  the  Lieutenant  in  silence  and  aston- 
ishment. 

"I  am  here,"   announced   the  new  comer,    "to   report." 

"I'd  suggest,"  faltered  the  Governor,  "that  you  see  General 
Forbes.  He'll  know  what  you  mean." 


42         The  Key  to  the  1911  Legislature 

cort;  entered  the  Assembly  chamber  with  the  retiring 
Governor,  and  took  the  oath  of  office. 

Johnson  had  something  to  say,  and,  in  his  inaugural 
address,  said  it. 

The  Governor  didn't  tell  his  hearers  that  California  has 
a  glorious  climate.5*  He  took  it  for  granted  that  Cali- 
fornians  are  proud  of  California.  But  he  recognized  that 
before  Californians  may  come  into  their  own,  before  the 
best  development  of  the  State  can  be  realized,  California 
must  be  politically  and  industrially  free. 

To  this  live  issue — the  issue  of  the  campaign  through 
which  he  had  just  passed — Johnson  devoted  his  inaugural 
address.  Not  a  man  or  woman  in  the  packed  assembly 
chamber  failed  to  realize  that  Johnson  assumed  office 
with  a  definite  plan  of  action,  and  a  determined  purpose 
to  press  that  plan  to  realization. 

And  after  all,  "the  Johnson  policies,"55  the  term  by 

64  Johnson  devoted  part  of  the  concluding  paragraph  of  his 
address  to  the  possibilities  of  our  climate  and  the  State's  destiny, 
subjects  which  In  the  past  have  filled  volumes  of  gubernatorial  ad- 
dresses and  messages.  Johnson  said: 

"I  have  purposely  refrained  to-day  from  Indulging  in  panegyrics 
upon  the  beauty,  grandeur,  wealth,  and  prosperity  of  our  State, 
or  from  solemnly  declaring  that  we  will  foster  Industries,  and  aid 
in  all  that  is  material.  It  goes  without  saying  that,  whatever 
political  or  other  differences  may  exist  among  our  citizens,  all 
are  proud  of  California,  its  unbounded  resources,  its  unsurpassed 
scenic  grandeur,  its  climatic  conditions  that  compel  the  wondering 
admiration  of  the  world;  and  all  will  devotedly  lend  their  aid  to 
the  proper  development  of  the  State,  to  the  protection  and  preser- 
vation of  that  which  our  citizens  have  acquired,  and  that  which 
industrially  is  in  our  midst.  Ours  of  course  is  a  glorious  destiny, 
to  the  promotion  and  consummation  of  which  we  look  forward 
with  pride  and  affection,  and  to  which  we  pledge  our  highest 
endeavor.  Hand  in  hand  with  that  prosperity  and  material  devel- 
opment that  we  foster,  and  that  will  be  ours  practically  in  any 
event,  goes  political  development.  The  hope  of  governmental  ac- 
complishment for  progress  and  purity  politically  is  with  us  In  this 
new  era.  This  hope  and  wish  for  accomplishment  for  the  su- 
premacy of  the  right  and  its  maintenance,  I  believe  to  be  with 
every  member  of  the  Legislature." 

85  Johnson's  message  will  be  found  in  the  appendix.  The  rec- 
ommendations made  in  it,  "the  Johnson  policies,"  are  as  follows: 

Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall — The  application  of  the  prin- 


The  Key  to  the  1911  Legislature         43 

which  the  recommendations  contained  in  this  inaugural 
message  soon  became  known,  were  nothing  more  nor  less 
than  the  reforms  for  which  the  citizens  of  California  had 
long  been  contending,  and  which  were  pledged  in  the 
State  platforms  of  the  Republican  and  Democratic  parties. 
The  address  was  based  on  the  assumption  that  The 
People  of  California  are  competent  to  govern  themselves. 

clple  of  Direct  Legislation  to  all  departments  of  government,  to 
include  the  judiciary  in  the  provision  for  the  recall  of  Judges. 

Railroad  Regulation — The  passage  of  a  railroad  regulation  law 
that  shall  make  plain  the  powers  of  the  Railroad  Commissioners, 
and  especially  authorize  the  Commission  to  establish  the  physical 
valuation  of  railroad  properties  as  the  basis  of  rate  making;  and 
to  fix  absolute  railroad  rates,  to  which  the  railroads  shall  be 
bound.  An  appropriation  sufficiently  large  to  enable  the  Commis- 
sioners to  do  their  work  properly. 

Reform  of  Election  Laws — The  restoration  of  the  Australian 
ballot  to  its  original  simplicity  and  effectiveness  by  doing  away 
with  party  circle  and  party  column. 

Direct  Primary — The  simplification  of  the  measure  so  that  it 
shall  be  easy  instead  of  difficult  for  a  citizen  to  become  a  candidate 
for  office. 

Election  of  United  States  Senator — An  advisory,  pledge-sus- 
tained, State-wide  vote  for  United  States  Senator,  in  which  the 
whole  people,  rather  than  the  members  of  some  particular  party, 
shall  participate.  The  Oregon  system. 

Conservation — The  passage  of  a  law  that  shall  conserve  the 
resources  of  the  State,  not  alone  for  development,  but  for  devel- 
opment and  preservation  for  the  whole  people. 

Short  Ballot — To  make  merely  clerical  ministerial  offices  ap- 
pointive instead  of  elective.  Suggestion  made  that  the  State 
Printer,  Surveyor  General,  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction, 
Secretary  of  State,  Clerk  of  Supreme  Court,  State  Treasurer  and 
Attorney  General  be  appointed  instead  of  elected. 

Employers'  Liability — To  make  the  risk  of  industry,  a  charge 
against  the  industry  itself,  thus  taking  the  burden  of  the  risk 
from  the  shoulders  of  the  employer  as  well  as  from  the  shoulders 
of  the  employee. 

County  Government — The  granting  of  home  rule  to  counties, 
along  the  same  lines  as  the  home  rule  enjoyed  by  municipalities. 

Civil  Service — The  application  of  the  merit  system  to  all  de- 
partments of  government. 

Prison  Reform — Reformatories  for  first  offenders. 

Nonpartisan  Judiciary — To  take  the  judiciary  out  of  politics 
by  keeping  the  party  designation  of  candidates  for  judicial  office 
off  the  ballot. 

Less  than  three  months  later,  March  27,  1911,  in  his  farewell 
address  to  the  Legislature,  Governor  Johnson  was  able  to  say: 
"No  pledge  given  to  The  People  of  the  State  has  by  this  Legisla- 
ture been  broken.  Not  a  single  promise  is  to-night  left  unful- 
filled. It  is  for  this  reason  that  I  congratulate  The  People  of 
the  State  of  California  on  the  Legislature  whose  session  is  now 
at  an  end,  and  so  far  as  I  can  represent  The  People  of  the  State 
of  California,  I  extend  to  you  their  heartfelt  thanks." 


44         The  Key  to  the  1911  Legislature 

Heretofore,  California  politicians  have  politely  conceded 
that  Californians  possess  this  degree  of  intelligence,  and 
have  taken  care  that  as  little  opportunity  as  possible  for 
the  exercise  of  such  intelligence  should  be  given. 

Johnson  not  only  admitted  the  intelligence  of  The 
People,  but  on  this  intelligence  he  based  his  hope  of  the 
development,  prosperity  and  well-being  of  the  State. 
That  the  purpose  of  The  People  shall  be  given  its  freest 
expression,  he  held  that  the  government  of  the  State 
must  be  made  responsive  to  The  People.  The  first  step 
toward  this  desired  end  he  held  was  to  eliminate  every 
private  interest  from  the  government,  and  to  make  the 
public  service  of  the  State  responsive  to  The  People 
alone.66 

That  this  condition  might  prevail,  he  contended  that 
the  government  must  be  brought  closer  to  The  People 
>  through  direct  legislation. 

{*O  To  this  end,  Governor  Johnson  urged  Constitutional 
Amendments  which  shall  give  The  People  power  to 
initiate  laws — the  Initiative :  power  of  veto  upon  laws 
which  may  be  enacted  by  the  Legislature — the  Refer- 
endum ;  power  to  remove  from  elective  office  the  incom- 
petent or  the  corrupt — the  Recall. 

He  urged  further  that  by  legislative  enactment  the 
Australian  Ballot  be  restored  to  its  original  simplicity  and 
effectiveness,  that  men   may  be  selected   for  office  be- 
cause of  their  personal  worth,  rather  than  .their  political 
tu  CfV  vn 


56  "In  some  form  or  other,  nearly  every  governmental  problem 
that  Involves  the  health,  the  happiness,  or  the  prosperity  of  the 
State  has  arisen,  because  some  private  interest  has  intervened  or 
has  sought  for  its  own  gain  to  exploit  either  the  resources  or 
the  politics  of  the  State." — Governor  Johnson  in  his  inaugural 
address.  See  appendix. 


The  Key  to  the  1911  Legislature         45 

affiliations ;  that  the  imperfections  of  the  Direct  Primary 
law  of  1909  be  corrected ;  that  The  People  be  given  the 
machinery  to  compel  from  the  Legislature  recognition  of 
their  selections,  by  popular  vote,  to  represent  the  State 
in  the  Federal  Senate. 

There  was  no  half-way  course  advocated  in  John- 
son's first  word  to  the  Legislature;  no  hesitancy  about 
accepting  the  logical  conclusion,  after  accepting  his  major 
premise  that  The  People  of  California  are  intelligent 
enough  to  govern  themselves. 

If  The  People  are  intelligent  enough  to  govern  them- 
selves, they  are  intelligent  enough  to  recall  from  office 
an  official  who  has  shown  himself  incompetent  or  corrupt. 
Nor  did  the  Governor  exclude  the  Judiciary  from  this 
provision.57  If  The  People  have  the  intelligence  to  select 
Judges,  he  argued,  they  have  the  intelligence  to  remove 
from  the  bench  that  Judge  who,  in  their  judgment,  has, 
on  trial,  demonstrated  his  unfitness  or  his  unworth. 

Johnson's  recommendation  regarding  the  nomination 
by  popular  vote  of  United  States  Senators  was  based  on 
the  same  principle.  If  The  People  are  to  be  given  any 
voice  at  all  in  the  election  of  Federal  Senators  there  is 
logically  no  half-way  point.  Either  The  People  are  com- 
er "I  commend  to  you  the  proposition,"  said  the  Governor, 
"that,  after  all,  the  Initiative  and  the  Referendum  depend  on  our 
confidence  in  The  People  and  in  their  ability  to  govern.  The 
opponents  of  direct  legislation  and  the  Recall,  however  they  may 
phrase  their  opposition,  in  reality  believe  The  People  cannot  be 
trusted.  On  the  other  hand,  those  of  us  who  espouse  these  meas- 
ures do  so  because  of  our  deep-rooted  belief  in  popular  govern- 
ment, and  not  only  in  the  right  of  The  People  to  govern,  but  in 
their  ability  to  govern;  and  this  leads  us  logically  to  the  belief 
that  if  The  People  have  the  right,  the  ability,  and  the  intelligence 
to  elect,  they  have  as  well  the  right,  ability  and  intelligence  to 
reject  or  to  recall,  and  this  applies  with  equal  force  to  an  admin- 
istrative or  a  judicial  officer.  I  suggest,  therefore,  that  if  you 
believe  in  the  Recall,  and  if  in  your  wisdom  you  desire  its  adoption 
by  The  People,  you  make  no  exception  in  its  application." 


46         The  Key  to  the  1911  Legislature 

petent  to  name  their.  United  States  Senators  or  they  are 
not.    Johnson  held  them  to  be  competent. 

He  accordingly  recommended  that  legislation  be  en- 
acted to  provide  that  candidates  for  the  United  States 
Senate  be  nominated  at  the  primaries  as  State  officials 
are  nominated  ;58  that  the  names  of  the  nominees  for  Uni- 
ted States  Senator  as  made  by  the  several  parties  be 
placed  on  the  election  ballot  so  that  The  People  at  the 
finals  may  vote  for  them  the  same  as  for  the  candidates 
for  any  State  office ;  that  a  form  of  contract  be  provided 
by  which  candidates  for  the  Legislature  may  be  bound 
in  the  event  of  their  election,  to  abide  by  The  People's 
choice  in  naming  the  Senator,  as  is  done  in  Oregon. 

There  was  no  questioning  the  logic  of  Johnson's  posi- 
tion. Admit  with  him  that  The  People  are  competent  to 
govern  themselves,  and  one  must  go  in  full  sympathy 
with  his  policies  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  his 
message. 

From  the  moment  of  the  delivery  of  that  message, 
there  was  a  new  alignment  in  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  California.  In  unmistakable  terms,  Governor 
Johnson  had  made  the  Initiative,  the  Referendum,  the 
Recall,  Restoration  of  the  Australian  Ballot,  Direct  Vote 
for  United  States  Senator,  Effective  Railroad  Regulation 
— all  the  reforms,  in  a  word,  to  which  both  parties  stood 
pledged,  and  for  which  The  People  were  clamoring — 
"administration  policies."  And  "administration  policies" 


58  The  same  position  was  at  first  taken  by  several  of  the 
Progressives  at  the  session  of  1909,  but  abandoned  for  the  com- 
promise, "within-the-party  plan,"  which  the  machine  finally 
fought  as  viciously  as  it  could  have  opposed  the  Oregon  plan  itself. 


The  Key  to  the  1911  Legislature         47 

in  no  partisan  sense.    Johnson  left  no  room  for  partisan- 
ship. 

"It  is  in  no  partisan  spirit  that  I  have  addressed  you," 
he  said  in  concluding;  "it  is  in  no  partisan  spirit  that  I 
appeal  to  you  to  aid.  Democrats  and  Republicans  alike 
are  citizens,  and  equal  patriotism  is  in  each.  Your  aid, 
your  comfort,  your  highest  resolve  and  endeavor,  I  be- 
speak, not  as  Republicans  or  Democrats,  but  as  repre- 
sentatives of  all  the  people  of  all  classes  and  political 
affiliations,  as  patriots  indeed,  for  the  advancement  and 
progress  and  righteousness  and  uplift  of  California.  And 
may  God  in  His  mercy  grant  us  the  strength  and  the 
courage  to  do  the  right." 

The  "bracer"  which  the  Legislature  needed  had  been 
furnished.  The  Senator  or  Assemblyman  who  had  more 
belief  in  direct  legislation  than  in  his  own  conviction  that 
direct  legislation  is  based  on  sound  principle,  and  who 
was  ready  to  accept  any  compromise  which  the  machine 
was  willing  to  offer,  found  himself  confronted  with  the 
alternative  of  following  with  the  administration  or  run- 
ning with  the  "machine."  That  member  who  insisted 
that  United  States  Senators  should  be  elected  by  direct 
vote,  but  hesitated  about  adopting  its  equivalent,  the 
Oregon  plan,  saw  there  were  but  two  sides ;  he  must 
either  stand  with  those  who  advocated  popular  election 
of  United  States  Senators,  or  with  those  who  opposed. 

Johnson's  message  wiped  out  partisan  lines.  In  the 
Legislature  of  1911,  there  were  to  be  no  Republican 
policies  nor  Democratic  policies,  only  "administration 


48         The  Key  to  the  1911  Legislature 

policies."59  Those  Democrats  and  those  Republicans  who 
continued  faithful  to  the  spirit  as  well  as  the  letter  of  the 
platform  of  their  respective  party,  must  of  necessity  sup- 
port the  "administration  measures." 

And  those  who  failed  to  support  such  measures  would 
find  themselves  outside  the  pale  of  both  parties.  It  was 
evident  that  some  changes  of  attitude  had  to  be  made,  or 
certain  of  the  old  guard  would  find  themselves  without 
a  party.60 

And  there  were  many  such  changes.     Men  of  the 

so  At  once  legislators  and  lobbyists  with  "pet  measures"  claimed 
for  them  the  advantage  of  being  "administration  measures."  So 
general  did  this  abuse  become,  that  before  the  session  was  a 
month  old,  Governor  Johnson  found  himself  compelled  to  issue  the 
following  statement: 

"Apparently  there  has  been  some  misapprehension  regarding 
what  have  been  termed  'administration  measures'  before  the  Leg- 
islature. There  is  no  desire  on  my  part  to  do  anything  else  than 
to  act  with  members  of  the  Legislature  in  accomplishing  those 
things  concerning  which  all  of  us  stand  pledged,  and  when  I  say 
'all  of  us,'  I  mean  Democrats  as  well  as  Republicans.  Apparently 
many  bills  wholly  outside  of  this  category  have  been  termed  by 
the  newspapers,  sometimes  erroneously,  and  sometimes  maliciously, 
'administration  measures.' 

"The  particular  measures  for  which  I  am  at  present  striving  in 
common  with  the  members  of  the  Legislature  who  wish  to  redeem 
their  promises  to  The  People,  are  the  Railroad  bill,  the  Amend- 
ment to  the  Direct  Primary  Law,  Ballot  Reform,  the  Initiative, 
Referendum  and  Recall  and  the  bills  recently  introduced  at  my 
request,  to  recover  the  public  service  appropriated  at  the  close 
of  the  term  of  my  predecessor,  and  the  Act  about  to  be  intro- 
duced designed  to  prevent  such  appropriation  in  the  future. 

"I  make  this  statement  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  the  im- 
pression that  certain  bills  outside  of  our  platform  pledges  are 
measures  of  the  administration.  In  respect  to  bills  in  general, 
that  are  introduced,  my  attitude  has  been  to  decline,  in  advance, 
in  any  way,  to  approve  any  proposed  measure,  but  to  leave  the 
question  of  approval  or  disapproval  of  a  measure  until  the  matter 
shall  have  been  passed  upon  by  the  Legislature,  and  in  due  course 
Drought  to  the  Governor." 

eo  Take  for  example  those  co-workers  in  the  Senate  of  1909, 
Senator  Hare  of  San  Francisco,  down  in  the  record  as  a  "Demo- 
crat," and  Senator  Wright  of  San  Diego,  down  in  the  record  as  a 
"Republican." 

At  the  1909  session,  these  two  gentlemen  voted  together  almost 
constantly  on  questions  of  public  policy. 

Among  the  most  important  policies  recommended  by  Johnson 
and  pledged  by  both  parties,  for  example,  were  a  practical  State- 
wide vote  for  United  States  Senator,  and  effective  Railroad  Regu- 
lation, to  include  physical  valuation  of  railroad  properties  and 
definite  authority  granted  the  State  Board  of  Railroad  Commis- 
sioners to  fix  absolute  rates. 

Both  Senator  Hare  and  Senator  Wright  opposed  these  policies 


The  Key  to  the  1911  Legislature         49 

character  of  those  whom  machine  managers  send  to  the 
Legislature  were  prepared  to  desert  the  machine  for  the 
"winner,"  just  as  they  will  desert  the  Progressives  should 
the  Reactionaries  secure  control  again. 

But  even  without  this  shifty  crew,  the  Progressives 
had  a  good  working  majority  in  both  Senate  and  As- 
sembly. This  majority  included  the  Progressive  Demo- 
crats61 as  well  as  the  Progressive  Republicans.  Governor 
Johnson  had  made  it  clear  that  neither  party  had  a 
monopoly  of  the  progressive  movement;  the  reforms 
which  he  advocated  in  his  message  had  been  pledged  in 
the  platforms  of  both  parties.  The  reputable  element  of 
both  parties  united  to  uphold  the  Governor  in  his  recom- 
mendation that  their  platform  pledges  be  observed.62 

at  the  session  of  1909.  If  they  continued  their  opposition  at  the 
1911  session,  with  which  party  were  they  to  be  classed? 

The  same  applied  with  equal  force  to  Senator  Welch,  or  to 
Senator  Bills,  or  to  Senator  Finn,  in  fact,  to  all  the  members  of 
the  Senate  who  had,  during  the  1909  session,  been  identified  with 
the  Wolfe-Leavitt  group. 

61  "The   President  of   the    Senate"    (Lieutenant-Governor  Wal- 
lace), announced  Senator  Caminetti,  Democratic  leader,  "will  have 
my  earnest  support  from  now  on.    It  is  the  President's  purpose  to 
secure  action  on   the  recommendations  of  Governor  Johnson,   and 
my   purpose   to   assist   him." 

62  This    confidence    in    Governor    Johnson    assumed    one    phase 
which    could   not   be    justified.     Senators    and   Assemblymen   when 
called  upon  to  pass  upon  a  vicious,  but  strongly  supported  meas- 
ure, fell  into  the  habit  of  voting  for  it,  trusting  to  Governor  John- 
son to  exercise  his  veto  power.     The  Sacramento  Bee  in  its  issue 
of  March   4,    1911,   said   of   this  abuse: 

"A  tendency  is  developing  in  both  Senate  and  Assembly,  when 
a  well-backed  but  undesirable  measure  is  under  consideration,  to 
pass  it  with  the  comfortable  assurance  that  'a  safe  man  sits  in 
the  Governor's  chair,  and  he  has  a  veto.' 

"The  Assembly  and  Senate  may  find  this  an  easy  way  to  pass 
on  responsibility,  but  the  shifting  upon  one  man  the  wrath  of 
constituents  which  120  legislators  fear  to  encounter  cannot  be 
regarded  as  an  act  of  supreme  courage. 

"Furthermore,  the  Senate  and  Assembly  of  California  are  a 
duly  constituted  branch  of  State  Government.  For  them  to  shift 
a  duty  because,  if  honestly  performed,  it  would  offend  this  or 
that  powerful  political  body,  is  worse  than  cowardice;  it  amounts 
to  betrayal  of  trust. 

"The  Governor  represents  the  executive,  not  the  legislative,  de- 
partment. For  the  Governor  to  assume  legislative  powers  would 
very  properly  be  resented.  The  People  have  a  right  to  resent  the 
thrusting  of  legislative  responsibilities  upon  him." 


CHAPTER  IV. 
ELECTION  OF  UNITED  STATES  SENATOR. 

The  Progressives,  Having  Failed  at  the  Legislative  Ses- 
sion of  1909  to  Prevent  the  Organisation,  or  "Ma- 
chine" Members  Striking  From  the  Direct  Primary 
Measure  Practical  Provisions  for  the  Nomination  of 
United  States  Senators,  at  the  1911  Session,  Regard- 
less of  Party  Affiliations,  Joined  in  Electing  to  the 
United  States  Senate,  Judge  John  D.  Works,  W ho 
Had,  at  the  Primaries,  Received  the  Highest  Popular 
Vote  for  that  O  if  ice, 

The  line  between  the  so-called  machine  and  anti-ma- 
chine factions  in  Senate  and  Assembly  was  closely  drawn 
at  the  session  of  1909,  but  in  no  instance  was  the 
division  more  clearly  defined  than  in  the  contest  over 
that  section  of  the  Wright-Stanton63  Direct  Primary  bill 
which  dealt  with  the  nomination  of  United  States  Sen- 
ators by  popular  vote. 

The  anti-machine  faction,  while  willing  to  compromise 
with  the  "machine"  and  not  insist  upon  the  Oregon 
plan,64  nevertheless  insisted  that  The  People  of  California 

63  The  1909  Direct  Primary  bill  was  introduced  in  the  Upper 
House  by  Senator  Leroy  A.  Wright  of  San  Diego,  and  in  the 
Lower  by  Mr.  Phil  A.  Stanton  of  Los  Angeles. 

e*  The  procedure  of  nominating  and  electing  Federal  Senators 
under  the  Oregon  plan  is  as  follows: 

Candidates  for  United  States  Senator  are  nominated  by  the 
several  parties  precisely  as  are  candidates  for  State  offices. 

The  names   of   the   candidates   receiving  party   nominations   are 


Election  of  United  States  Senator         51 

be  given  a  practical  State-wide  vote  for  United  States 
Senator,  and  provided  with  the  machinery  by  which  each 
candidate  for  the  Legislature  could  be  bound  to  abide  by 
the  decision  of  The  People,  when,  as  legislator,  he  cast 
his  vote  for  United  States  Senator. 

Upon  this  last  provision,  the  anti-machine  members 
insisted.  Inasmuch,  they  contended,  as  the  Legislature 
can  not  be  legally  bound  to  observe  the  will  of  The  Peo- 
ple in  the  election  of  Federal  Senators,  any  more  than 
the  Electoral  College  can  be  legally  bound  to  elect  the 
choice  of  a  political  convention  to  the  Presidency,  it  is 
necessary  to  give  the  candidate  for  the  Legislature  oppor- 
tunity to  obligate  himself,65  to  abide  by  the  decision  of 

placed  on  the  ballot  at  the  final  election,  as  are  the  nominees  for 
other  offices. 

That  candidate  who  at  the  final  election  receives  the  highest 
vote  for  United  States  Senator  is  declared  to  be  the  choice  of 
the  electors. 

To  compel  observance  of  this  choice,  each  candidate  for  the 
Legislature  is  given  opportunity  to  sign  one  of  two  statements. 
The  first  sets  forth  that  the  signer  will  abide  by  the  popular 
choice  when,  as  a  member  of  the  Legislature  he  casts  his  vote  for 
United  States  Senator;  the  second,  that  he  will  regard  such  nomi- 
nation as  only  a  recommendation.  The  legislative  candidate  is 
not  bound  to  sign  either  statement.  But  it  would  probably  be 
difficult  for  any  candidate  who  refused  or  neglected  to  sign  the 
first-named  to  secure  election. 

The  compromise  California  plan  of  1909 — which  was  defeated 
by  the  machine — provided  the  alternative  statements — or  contracts 
— for  the  legislative  candidate  to  sign,  but  these  statements  bound 
him  only  to  vote  for  that  senatorial  candidate  who  had  received 
the  highest  number  of  votes  cast  by  his  party  at  the  primaries. 
Under  this  arrangement,  had  it  been  adopted,  the  senatorial  candi- 
dates' names  would  have  been  placed  on  the  primary  ballot,  but 
not  on  the  final  ballot.  The  electors  of  California  would,  under 
this  proposed  arrangement,  however,  have  been  given  a  State- 
wide vote  within  their  party,  and  the  candidates  for  the  Legisla- 
ture were  given  opportunity  to  enter  into  a  contract  with  their 
constituents  to  be  governed  by  the  popular  choice. 

65  The  form  of  the  alternative  agreements,  or  statements, 
which,  under  the  original  draft  of  the  1909  Direct  Primary  law, 
each  candidate  for  the  Legislature  was  given  opportunity  to 
enter,  into  what  was  to  all  intents  and  purposes  a  contract  with 
his  constituents  to  abide  by  the  choice  of  his  party  for  United 
States  Senator,  was  as  follows: 

"I  further  declare  to  The  People  of  California  and  to  The  Peo- 
ple of  the (Senatorial  or  Assembly)  District  that  during  my 


52         Election  of  United  States  Senator 

the  polls.  Without  such  obligation,  the  anti-machine  Sen- 
ators and  Assemblymen  pointed  out,  the  section  of  the 
Direct  Primary  bill  dealing  with  the  Election  of  United 
States  Senators,  was  meaningless,  binding  upon  none,  a 
blind  and  a  sham,  and  provided  at  best  the  machinery 
for  nothing  more  than  a  "straw  vote." 

On  the  other  hand,  the  "machine"  element  at  first 
very  frankly  attempted  to  strike  from  the  Direct  Primary 
bill  all  provision  for  nomination  of  United  States  Sen- 
ators, leaving  the  election  of  Senators  entirely  at  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  Legislature  as  had  theretofore  prevailed. 
Failing  in  this,  the  next  move  of  the  "machine"  element 
was  to  strike  from  the  measure  all  provision  by  which  the 
candidates  for  the  Legislature  could,  under  regular  and 
uniform  agreement,  obligate  themselves  to  abide  by  the 
choice  of  the  electors,  and  to  substitute  for  the  State-wide 
vote  a  vote  by  Senatorial  and  Assembly  districts. 

The  anti-machine  Senators  denounced  the  proposed 
change  as  a  subterfuge,  intended  to  render  the  plan  to 


term  of  office,  without  regard  to  my  individual  preference,  I  will  al- 
ways vote  for  that  candidate  for  United  States  Senator  in  Con- 
gress who  shall  have  received  for  that  office  the  highest  number 
of  votes  cast  by  my  party  at  the  September  primary  election 
next  preceding  the  election  of  a  Senator  in  Congress." 

If  the  legislative  candidate  did  not  care  to  sign  this  pledge, 
he  was  given  the  alternative  of  signing  the  following: 

"I  further  declare  to  The  People  of  California  and  to  The  Peo- 
ple of  the (Senatorial  or  Assembly)  District  that  during  my 

term  of  office  I  shall  consider  the  vote  of  The  People  at  any  pri- 
mary election  for  United  States  Senator  as  nothing  more  than  a  rec- 
ommendation, which  I  shall  be  at  liberty  wholly  to  disregard,  if 
I  see  fit." 

The  candidate  for  the  Legislature  was  not  required  to  sign 
either  agreement.  That  was  left  to  his  discretion.  But  with 
public  sentiment  in  California  on  the  question  of  the  election  of 
Federal  Senators  by  direct  vote  what  it  is,  no  candidate  for  the 
Legislature  who  failed  to  sign  the  first  agreement  could  hope 
for  election. 


Election  of  United  States  Senator         53 

give  The  People  a  voice  in  the  election  of  United  States 
Senators  impractical  and  inoperative.66 

On  this  ground,  the  anti-machine  Senators  and  As- 
semblyman combated  the  proposed  change. 

But  in  spite  of  this  opposition,  the  machine  element 
finally  prevailed.67  The  practical  State-wide,  pledge-sus- 
tained plan  for  nominating  United  States  Senators  was 
stricken  from  the  bill,  and  the  measure  became  a  law 
with  provision  for  the  district,  advisory  plan.68 

There  were  several  reasons  for  the  final  outcome  in 
this  contest  between  the  two  factions  at  the  1909  session. 

In  the  first  place,  the  "machine"  faction  numbered 
among  its  members  the  cleverest  parliamentarians  and 
tricksters  of  the  Legislature.  Then,  too,  the  "machine" 
controlled  the  organization  of  both  Houses.  But  more 
important  than  all  was  the  fact  that  at  the  most  critical 


66  "The  district  plan  which  Senator  Wright  and  Senator  Wolfe 
now  advocate,"  said  Senator  Stetson  in  opposing  the  district  plan, 
on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  March  19,  1909,   "is  a  little  worse  than 
no  provision  for  the  election  of  United  States  Senators  at  all." 

67  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,"  Chapters 
VTII,  IX,  X,   XI. 

68  The    position    of    the    anti-machine    Senators    was    well    set 
forth  by  Senator  Stetson  in  explaining  his  apparent  acceptance  of 
the  machine  substitute: 

"Before  voting  on  this  matter,"  said  Stetson,  "lest  any  one  In 
the  future  may  think  that  I  have  been  passed  something  and 
didn't  know  it,  I  wish  to  explain  my  vote,  and  wish  to  say  that 
this  permission  accorded  a  candidate  to  go  on  record  to  support 
that  candidate  for  United  States  Senator,  who  shall  have  the 
endorsement  of  the  greatest  number  of  districts,  comes  from  no- 
body and  goes  to  nobody.  It  means  nothing — mere  words — idle 
words.  The  only  way  in  which  a  candidate  could  have  been 
pledged  would  have  been  to  provide  a  pledge  or  instruction  to 
the  Legislature.  The  words  'shall  be  permitted'  mean  nothing 
and  get  nowhere.  I  shall  vote  for  this  report,  not  because  I 
want  to,  but  because  I  have  to  if  we  are  at  this  session  to  have 
any  Direct  Primary  law  at  all." 

Senator  Stetson's  quotation  did  not  follow  the  exact  wording 
for  the  substitute  which  was  "shall  be  at  liberty,"  instead  of 
"shall  be  permitted." 


54         Election  of  United  States  Senator 

point  of  the  contest,  Senator  LeroyA.  Wright,69  who 
had  introduced  the  bill,  and  who  had  been  looked  upon 
as  a  leader  of  the  anti-machine  group  in  the  Senate,  went 
over  to  the  Wolfe-Leavitt,  or  organization,  or  "machine," 
faction,  and  contended  in  opposition  to  his  former  anti- 
machine  associates,  for  the  district,  advisory  plan. 

In  addition  to  this,  the  San  Francisco  Call,70  which 
up  to  that  time  had  been  regarded  as  a  leader  for  the 

69  Senator  Stetson,  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  (speech  before 
the  Senate,  March  19,  1909),  expressed  the  views  of  his  anti- 
machine  colleagues  on  Senator  Wright's  change  of  position.  Stet- 
son reviewed  the  history  of  the  Direct  Primary  measure;  told  of 
the  conferences  which  Senator  Wright  had  had  with  the  men 
whom  Wright  was  then  opposing;  told  how  they  had  united,  Sen- 
ator Wright  with  them,  to  give  The  People  as  good  a  law  as 
was  possible  under  the  conditions. 

"But  when  I  found,"  said  Senator  Stetson,  "that  Senator 
Wright  is  back  in  the  camp  of  those  whom  he  had  given  me  to 
understand  did  not  want  any  direct  primary  at  all,  or  at  best,  an 
ineffective  direct  primary,  I  must  confess  that  I  was  amazed 
beyond  question. 

"The  very  men  who  wanted  nothing  in  the  bill  at  all  relating 
to  the  nomination  of  United  States  Senators,  are  now  willing  to 
accept  the  district  plan.  I  am  amazed  that  Senator  Wright  does 
not  put  two  and  two  together  and  see  this." 

TO  Senator  Marshall  Black,  in  a  signed  statement  published  at 
the  time,  arraigned  "The  Call"  for  that  publication's  change  of 
attitude.  "No  decent  primary  law,"  said  Black,  "would  have 
been  possible  but  for  the  combination  of  thirteen  Republicans  and 
seven  Democrats  in  the  Senate  who  have  stood  together  through- 
out this  whole  fight.  Senator  Wright  and  the  'Call'  were  power- 
less in  the  contest  until  these  twenty  Senators  got  behind  them. 

"One  of  the  conditions  of  this  combination  was  a  State-wide 
vote  on  United  States  Senator,  and  the  'Call'  fought  with  us 
against  Senators  Wolfe  and  Leavitt  on  this  proposition.  Imme- 
diately after  the  bill  left  the  Senate  and  got  into  the  Assembly, 
the  'Call'  began  to  display  a  lack  of  interest  in  the  primary  fight. 
If  it  had  maintained  its  attitude  in  favor  of  the  original  bill  these 
amendments  never  would  have  been  proposed  by  the  Assembly. 

"When  the  question  of  concurring  in  the  Assembly  amendments 
comes  up,  we  find  the  'Call'  and  Senator  Wright  deserting  the 
men  who  made  the  primary  fight  in  the  Senate  and  going  over 
to  the  camp  of  the  'push'  politicians,  who  have  always  favored 
the  district  plan  of  nominating  United  States  Senators. 

"I  take  issue  with  the  'Call'  when  it  says:  'As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  whole  question  of  the  United  States  Senatorship  is  of 
little  importance  to  the  people  of  California,'  etc. 

"The  United  States  Senatorship  is  the  most  important  office  to 
be  filled  by  the  people  of  California  under  the  provisions  of  the 
proposed  Direct  Primary  law.  The  so-called  district  plan  for 
nominating  United  States  Senators  is  worse  than  a  makeshift. 


Election  of  United  States  Senator         55 

passage  of  an  effective  Direct  Primary  law,  and  which 
had  denounced  the  Wolfe-Leavitt  faction  for  its  opposi- 
tion to  the  Direct  Primary  measure,71  deserted  the  anti- 
machine  Senators  and  Assemblymen  whom  it  had  been 
supporting,  and  contended  for  the  passage  of  the  bill  in 
the  form  the  Wolfe-Leavitt  faction  was  advocating. 

In  the  confusion  which  such  changes  of  position  cre- 
ated, the  machine  element,  in  control  of  the  organization 
of  both  Houses,  was  able  to  force  the  anti-machine  mem- 
bers into  a  position  where  they  were  confronted  with  the 
alternative  of  giving  up  their  pledge-sustained,  State-wide 
vote  plan  of  nominating  United  States  Senators,  or  see 
the  Legislature  adjourned  without  the  passage  of  any 
Direct  Primary  law  at  all.72  Rather  than  defeat  the  en- 
it  provides  for  no  pledge  on  the  part  of  candidates  and  would  be 
purely  a  straw  vote,  binding  on  nobody. 

"The  stubborn  fact  remains  that  the  'Call,'  after  leading  in 
the  fight  for  an  honest  Direct  Primary  law  for  two  years  and  a 
half,  has  deserted  the  cause  of  The  People  at  the  most  critical 
moment  of  the  struggle." 

71  See  files  of  the  San  Francisco  Call  for  the  months  of  Feb- 
ruary and   March,    1909,    especially   the   issues   of  February   17,   18 
and  19,   in  which   the  Wolfe-Leavitt  faction,  which  in  March  The 
Call  was  supporting,  was  denounced. 

72  This  was  done  by  forcing  the  bill  into  a  committee  on  Free 
Conference,    of    which    five    members,     Senators    Wolfe,     L/eavitt, 
Wright  and  Assemblymen  Grove  L.  Johnson  and  Leeds  were  sup- 
porting   the    "district    advisory"    plan,    and   one    member,    Hewitt, 
the    State-wide,    pledge-sustained    plan. 

Joint  Rule  15,  session  of  1909,  provided  that  "The  report  of 
the  Committee  on  Free  Conference  shall  not  be  subject  to  amend- 
ment in  either  house,  and  in  case  of  non-agreement  no  further 
proceedings  shall  be  had."  Therefore,  had  Senate  or  Assembly 
rejected  the  report  which  the  one-sided  committee  presented,  there 
was  no  procedure  by  which  further  consideration  could  have  been 
given  the  Direct  Primary  bill,  and  the  measure  would  have  failed 
of  passage. 

If  the  anti-machine  members  of  Senate  or  Assembly  rejected 
the  report,  thus  defeating  the  whole  bill,  they  lost  their  fight  not 
only  for  a  practical  State-wide  vote  for  United  States  Senator,  but 
for  the  power  to  nominate  other  candidates  for  office  by  direct 
vote  of  the  people.  If  they  accepted  the  report  they  lost  the 
practical  vote  for  United  States  Senator,  to  be  sure,  but  placed 
the  power  of  the  direct  primary  in  the  hands  of  the  people.  They 
accordingly  accepted  the  machine's  substitute  for  their  practical 
State-wide  vote  for  United  States  Senator — knowing  that  the  plan 


56         Election  of  United  States  Senator 

tire  measure,  the  anti-machine  members  accepted  defeat 
On  that  part  of  it  which  would  have  given  The  People  a 
voice  in  naming  the  United  States  Senator.  But  there 
was  no  self-delusion  in  thus  accepting  defeat.  As  Sena- 
tor Black  put  it,  the  machine's  plan  provided  a  "mere 
straw  vote  binding  upon  nobody."  Senator  Stetson  terse- 
ly insisted  that  he  did  not  propose  in  future  it  could  be 
stated  that  he  "had  been  handed  something  and  didn't 
know  it."  Stetson  accordingly  denounced  the  "machine's" 
substitute  as  "mere  words,  idle  words."  And  "mere 
words,  idle  words,"  every  man,  who  had  followed  the 
long  drawn  out  contest  between  the  two  factions  knew  it 
to  be.78 

After  the  adjournment  of  the  1909  session,  the  very 
men  who  had  been  instrumental  in  changing  those  pro- 
visions of  the  Direct  Primary  law  which  deal  with  the 


was  unworkable  and  saying  so — to  save  good  features  of  the 
Direct  Primary  bill.  By  taking  this  course,  the  an ti -machine 
members  paved  the  way  for  the  nomination  of  a  machine-free 
candidate  for  Governor,  and  for  machine-free  candidates  for  the 
Senate  and  Assembly  who  at  the  1911  session  put  on  the  Statute 
books  the  practical  Oregon  plan  for  nominating  and  electing 
United  States  Senators.  See  Chapter  V,  "Amendment  of  the 
Direct  Primary  Law." 

73  The  provision  regarding  the  election  of  United  States  Sena- 
tors, which  finally  went  into  the  bill,  was  as  follows:  "By  nomi- 
nating petitions  signed  and  filed  as  provided  by  existing  laws. 
Party  candidates  for  the  office  of  United  States  Senator  shall  have 
their  names  placed  on  the  official  primary  election  ballots  of  their 
respective  parties  in  the  manner  herein  provided  for  State  officers; 
provided,  however,  that  the  vote  for  candidates  for  United  States 
Senators  shall  be  an  advisory  vote  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining 
the  sentiment  of  the  voters  in  the  respective  Senatorial  and  As- 
sembly districts  In  the  respective  parties;  provided,  further,  that 
members  of  the  Legislature  shall  be  at  liberty  to  vote  either  for 
the  choice  of  their  respective  districts  expressed  at  said  primary 
election,  or  for  the  candidate  for  United  States  Senator  who  shall 
have  received  the  endorsement  of  their  party  at  such  primary 
election  in  the  greatest  number  of  districts  electing  members  of 
such  party  to  the  Legislature." 


Election  of  United  States  Senator         57 

nomination  of  United  States  Senators,  gave  evidence  of 
regarding  them  very  lightly. 

As  the  1910  primary  campaign  approached,  the  anti- 
machine  or  Lincoln-Roosevelt  League  branch  of  the  Re- 
publican party  endeavored  to  ascertain  from  the  machine 
Republicans  whether  they  would  regard  as  binding  the 
"straw  vote"  for  United  States  Senator  which  was  pro- 
vided in  the  Direct  Primary  law. 

The  machine  Republicans  at  the  time  were  in  com- 
plete control  of  the  machinery  of  the  party,  through  the 
Republican  State  Central  Committee.  On  the  committee, 
however,  was  an  active  anti-machine  minority.  Through 
this  minority,  the  Lincoln-Roosevelt  faction  attempted  to 
secure  some  expression  from  the  machine  element  as  to 
the  extent  it  would  hold  itself  bound  to  regard  the  "straw 
vote"  for  United  States  Senator. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Republican  State  Central  Com- 
mittee, held  at  the  Palace  Hotel,  San  Francisco,  June  20, 
1910,  Mr.  Chester  H.  Rowell  introduced  a  resolution74 
which  set  forth  that  the  committee  regarded  the  intent  of 
the  "straw  vote"  for  United  States  Senator,  as  provided 
in  the  Direct  Primary  law,  to  be  morally  binding. 

Rowell's  resolution  was  opposed.  According  to  the 
published  reports75  of  the  meeting,  D.  O.  Druffel  of  Santa 

7*  The  resolution  was  in  full  as  follows:  "Resolved,  That  it  is 
the  plain  intent  of  the  Direct  Primary  law  that  the  vote  at  the 
Republican  primaries  for  United  States  Senator  shall  be  morally 
binding  on  all  Republican  members  of  the  Legislature  in  the  sense 
and  to  the  extent  stated  in  that  law,  and  that  it  would  be  a  vio- 
lation on  the  part  of  any  Republican  Legislator  of  his  obligation 
to  his  party  to  vote  for  any  candidate  for  United  States  Senator 
except  the  one  receiving  the  plurality  of  votes  at  the  Republican 
primary,  either  in  his  district  or  in  the  majority  of  districts  elect- 
ing Republican  Legislators." 

76  See   San   Francisco   newspapers,    June   21,    1910. 


58         Election  of  United  States  Senator 

Clara,  a  member  of  the  committee,  stated  there  was  but 
one  candidate  for  United  States  Senator,  Judge  John  D. 
Works,  and  that  the  other  aspirants  did  not  want  to  go 
before  the  people. 

Grove  L.  Johnson  suggested  that  inasmuch  as  the 
law  said  the  vote  of  electors  is  advisory,  he  was  unable  to 
see  how  the  State  Committee  by  resolution  could  make  it 
morally  binding  on  the  Legislature.76 

Assemblyman  Walter  R.  Leeds  of  Los  Angeles77 
wanted  to  know  what  Rowell  meant  by  "moral  obliga- 
tion." 

"An  obligation  on  the  conscience,"78  replied  Rowell. 

76  Johnson  was  one  of  the  members  of  the  Committee  on  Free 
Conference    responsible    for    the    final    form    of    the    "district    ad- 
visory"  plan. 

77  Leeds  in  the  1909  Legislature  led  the  fight  in  the  Assembly 
to  substitute  the  advisory,  district  plan,  for  the  State-wide,  pledge- 
sustained  provision.     Leeds  was  also  a  member  of  the  Committee 
on  Free  Conference  which  decided  upon  the  form  of  the  plan  as 
finally  incorporated  into  the  bill.    Leeds  was,   at  the  time  of  the 
Palace  Hotel  meeting,  a  candidate  for  nomination  for  re-election  to 
the  Assembly.    According  to  a  report  of  the  Palace  Hotel  meeting 
printed  in  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle,  June  21,  1910,  Leeds  stated 
"that  he  had  pledged  himself  to  vote  for  the  candidate  for  United 
States  Senator  running  before  the  people  of  his  district,  provided 
that    candidate    got    a    substantial    vote.     'The    present    candidate, 
John   D.    Works,'    proceeded   Leeds,    'isn't   popular   in    my   district 
and   will    not   get    10    per    cent,    of    the   Republican   vote    there.    I 
would  not  consider  that  vote  representative  of  the  opinion  of  the 
people  of  my  district  and  I  would  not  vote  for  him.     The  candi- 
date to  receive  my  vote  as  a  legislator  must  have  received  a  sub- 
stantial advisory  vote,   showing  that  he  is,   in   fact,   the  choice  of 
the  electors  whom  I  represent,  otherwise  I  will  not  vote  for  him.' 
Applause." 

By  one  of  those  humorous  happenings  of  politics,  it  may  be 
added,  at  the  primaries  Judge  Works  carried  "Mr.  Leeds'  district" 
— the  Seventieth  Assembly — by  a  clear  majority  over  all  the  other 
Republican  candidates.  The  Republican  primary  vote  for  United 
States  Senator  in  the  Seventieth  District  was:  Works,  4,019; 
Meserve,  2,727;  Spalding,  887.  Mr.  Leeds,  at  the  same  pri- 
maries, was  defeated  for  nomination,  receiving  only  2,910  votes, 
while  his  opponent  received  3,480.  To  add  to  Mr.  Leeds'  confu- 
sion, Judge  Works  also  carried  the  district  at  the  Democratic 
primary,  the  Democrats  having  written  his  name  on  their  tickets. 

78  In  spite  of  the  witticisms  of  the  members  of  the  committee. 
It  is  apparent  that  the  only  obligation  that  can,  until  the  Federal 
Constitution  shall  be  changed,  be  put  upon  a  member  of  the  Leg- 
islature   to   abide   by    the   will   of    The   People   in   electing   United 


Election  of  United  States  Senator         59 

Rowell's  reply  seems  to  have  struck  some  of  the  poli- 
ticians present  as  very  amusing. 

Rowell's  resolution  was  defeated.  The  State  Central 
Committee's  action  was  not  unreasonably  taken  as  an- 
nouncement that  the  machine  faction  of  the  Republican 
party  did  not  hold  it  to  be  "the  plain  intent  of  the  Direct 
Primary  law  that  the  vote  at  the  Republican  primaries 
for  United  States  Senator  shall  be  morally  binding  on 
all  Republican  members  of  the  Legislature  in  the  sense 
and  to  the  extent  stated  in  that  law." 

There  was  nothing  in  the  act  to  prevent  the  "machine" 
members  of  the  committee  taking  this  stand.  As  the 
section  of  the  measure  which  dealt  with  the  election  of 
United  States  Senators  stood,  no  obligation  was  placed 
upon  anyone,  legislative  candidate  or  party  manager,  to 
be  governed  by  the  section's  provisions.  These  provisions 
could  not  be  enforced  through  the  courts,  and  nobody 
pretended  that  they  could  be.  The  legislative  candidate 
could  not  be  compelled  to  obligate  himself  to  be  bound 
morally  by  them,  because  the  "machine"  members  at  the 
1909  session  had  succeeded  in  eliminating  the  section 
under  which  the  legislative  candidate  was  forced  to  place 
himself  under  moral  obligation,  or  definitely  refuse  to 
obligate  himself  to  abide  by  the  provisions.  The  measure, 
therefore,  imposed  neither  legal  nor  moral  obligation, 

States  Senators,  is  a  moral  obligation.  The  Legislator  cannot  be 
put  under  legal  obligation,  any  more  than  a  member  of  the  Elec- 
toral College  can  be  put  under  legal  obligation  to  be  governed  by 
a  convention's  choice  for  President  and  Vice-President.  And  it 
is  quite  as  apparent  that  until  a  candidate  for  the  Legislature 
accepts  this  moral  obligation,  he  cannot  be  held  bound  by  it.  At 
the  session  of  1909,  the  anti-machine  Senators  labored  for  a  pro- 
vision in  the  law  which  would  place  the  legislative  candidate  in 
a  position  where  he  must  definitely  accept  the  obligation,  or 
definitely  refuse  or  neglect  to  accept  it.  The  organization  element, 
as  has  been  seen,  prevented  this  provision  going  into  the  bill. 


60        Election  of  United  States  Senator 

nor  provided  the  means  to  compel  the  acceptance  or 
definite  rejection  of  a  moral  obligation. 

Then  again,  all  recognized  that  the  section  providing 
for  the  nomination  of  Federal  Senators  was  so  worded 
that  it  was  not  impossible  that  he  who  pledged  himself  to 
observe  its  provisions  might  find  himself  called  upon  to 
support  for  the  United  States  Senate  a  candidate  who, 
at  the  polls,  had  failed  to  secure  the  highest  vote,  who 
was  not,  indeed,  the  choice  of  the  greatest  number  of  the 
electors  of  the  State. 

This  point  was  illustrated  by  the  statement  that  in- 
stead of  supplying  the  peculiar  provisions  for  the  nomi- 
nation of  Federal  Senators  which  were  finally  forced  into 
the  1909  Direct  Primary  bill,  the  1909  Legislature  might 
have  provided  that  the  members  of  the  1911  Legislature 
should  be  at  liberty  to  elect  to  the  Federal  Senate  either 
the  nominee  of  Abe  Ruef  or  of  William  F.  Herrin  of 
the  Southern  Pacific  Company's  Law  Department.  Ab- 
surd as  this  provision  might  be,  it  is  scarcely  less  absurd 
than  the  provision  actually  read  into  the  1909  law,  under 
which,  if  a  candidate  for  the  1911  Legislature  agreed  to 
be  bound  by  it,  he  might  be  called  upon  to  misinterpret 
the  advice  of  the  electors,  by  voting  for  a  man  for  the 
Federal  Senate,  who  had  not  received  the  highest  vote 
of  The  People,  and  was,  obviously,  not  their  choice. 

Not  only  did  the  machine  element  refuse,  as  shown 
by  the  action  of  the  Republican  State  Central  Committee, 
to  be  bound  by  the  peculiar  provision  of  the  Direct 
Primary  act  for  nominated  United  States  Senators,  but 


Election  of  United  States  Senator         61 

the  Progressives  themselves  with  few  exceptions79  neg- 
lected or  refused  to  obligate  themselves  to  be  bound 
by  it. 

The  Democrats  did  not  even  go  to  the  trouble  to 
enter  a  Senatorial  candidate  at  the  primaries.  Until  the 
campaign  was  well  advanced,  but  one  Republican  candi- 
date was  in  the  field,  John  D.  Works,  who  had  the  en- 
dorsement of  the  Lincoln-Roosevelt  Republican  League. 
The  machine  element  openly  ridiculed  Works'  candidacy. 
Finally,  however,  two  candidates,  Edwin  A.  Meserve  and 
A.  G.  Spalding,  the  sporting  goods  manufacturer,  an- 
nounced themselves  as  candidates  against  Works. 

The  vote  for  United  States  Senator  at  the  primaries 
which  followed  developed  queer  complications. 

To  begin  with,  so  little  regard  was  given  the  "straw 
vote"  that  the  Republican  vote  for  Senator  was  only 
1 79,61 580  as  against  215,609  for  Governor. 

Of  this  vote,  Works  received  a  plurality,  64,757; 
Spalding,  63,182;  Meserve,  52,676. 

As  the  Democrats  had  no  candidate  for  Senator,  981 
members  of  that  party  wrote  the  name  of  one  or  the 


79  Even  under  the  Oregon  plan  Itself,  the  legislator  Is  not 
bound  to  observe  the  choice  of  the  electors  for  United  States 
Senator  until  he  has  signed  the  statement  notifying  his  con- 
stituents that  he  will  do  so.  And  then,  as  all  recognize,  the  can- 
didate is  under  moral  obligation  only,  and  In  no  way  legally 
bound,  to  keep  his  pledge.  But  a  moral  obligation  of  this  nature 
has  never  been  broken  and  probably  never  will  be. 

so  The  election  returns  used  in  this  chapter  are  all  taken 
from  the  "Statement  of  Vote  of  California,  Direct  Primary  Elec- 
tion, August  16,  1910,"  issued  by  Hon.  C.  F.  'Curry,  at  the  time 
Secretary  of  State  of  California,  to  whom,  under  the  law,  all 
primary  election  returns  were  made. 


62         Election  of  United  States  Senator 

other  of  the  Republican  candidates  on  their  ballots,  giving 
Works  a  majority,  551 ;  Spalding,  350,  and  Meserve,  80. 

On  the  basis  of  State-wide  vote,  Works  was  thus  the 
nominee  of  both  parties. 

On  the  other  hand,  although  receiving  a  smaller  num- 
ber of  votes  than  Works,  Spalding  had  carried  more 
Legislative  Districts  at  the  Republican  primaries  than 
had  his  opponent. 

Works,  however,  had  carried  more  Democratic  dis- 
tricts than  had  Spalding. 

If  the  wording  of  the  curious  provision  which  the 
machine  element  had  forced  into  the  Direct  Primary  law 
was  to  be  accepted,  Spalding  had  received  the  Republican 
nomination  and  Works  the  Democratic. 

But  even  here,  the  several  district  nominations,  of 
which  there  were  120,  had  strings  upon  them. 

For  example,  the  Sixty-sixth  Assembly  District  gave 
Works  the  Republican  nomination  with  501  votes.  On 
the  other  hand,  four  Democrats  in  that  district  wrote  Mr. 
Spalding's  name  on  their  ballots.  No  Democrat  thought 
to  perform  the  same  good  office  for  Judge  Works,  so 
that  Spalding,  with  four  votes,  had  the  Democratic  nomi- 
nation in  the  Sixty-sixth  District. 

However,  the  Assemblyman  elected  from  the  Sixty- 
sixth  District  turned  out  to  be,  not  a  Republican,  but  a 
Democrat,  Mr.  Fred  H.  Hall. 

Under  the  machine's  amendment  to  the  Direct  Pri- 
mary law,  Mr.  Hall  was  "at  liberty"  to  vote  for  Mr. 
Spalding.  Mr.  Spalding's  four  Democratic  votes  in  the 
Sixty-sixth  beat  Judge  Works'  501.  Incidentally,  Mr. 
Hall  was  most  happily  placed,  for,  by  another  quirk  of 


Election  of  United  States  Senator         63 

the  "machine  amendment,"  Mr.  Hall  was  "at  liberty"  to 
vote  for  that  candidate  for  the  Federal  Senate  who  had 
carried  the  greatest  number  of  legislative  districts  at  the 
Democratic  primaries,  in  this  instance,  Judge  Works.  So 
Mr.  Hall  was,  under  the  wording  of  the  machine  amend- 
ment, "at  liberty"  to  vote  for  either  Judge  Works  or  for 
Mr.  Spalding. 

But  Mr.  Hall  is  a  Democrat;  the  two  Senatorial  can- 
didates are  Republicans.  If  Mr.  Hall  happened  to  be 
a  strait-laced  partisan  the  situation  must  have  been 
shocking  to  his  sense  of  the  political  proprieties. 

When  the  contest  between  the  machine  and  anti- 
machine  factions  in  the  Legislature  over  the  Direct  Pri- 
mary bill  was  at  its  height,  the  charge  was  made  that 
the  district,  advisory  provision  for  nominating  United 
States  Senators  was  a  little  worse  than  no  provision  at 
all,  and  had  been  proposed  to  make  the  nomination  of 
United  States  Senators  by  direct  vote  of  The  People 
impractical.  The  result  of  the  primaries  rather  bore  out 
the  charge. 

But  no  sooner  were  the  returns  known  than  those 
who  were  most  responsible  for  the  defeat  of  the  practical 
provision  for  the  nomination  of  United  States  Senators, 
when  the  Direct  Primary  law  was  before  the  1909  Leg- 
islature, insisted  loudly  that  the  Republican  members  of 
the  Legislature  were  morally  bound  to  elect  Mr.  Spald- 
ing to  the  Federal  Senate.  Among  the  most  persistent 
in  advancing  this  view  were  Senator  Leroy  A.  Wright 81 
and  the  San  Francisco  Call. 

si  Senator  Wright's  position  was  not  consistent  with  the  stand 
which  he  took  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Election  Laws 
(February,  1909),  when  the  machine  element  was  endeavoring:  to 
strike  all  provisions  for  electing  United  States  Senators  from  the 


64 


Election  of  United  States  Senator 


On  the  other  hand,  others  contended  that  as  Judge 
Works  had  received  the  highest  vote,  he  was  the  choice 
of  The  People,  and  should  be  elected.  Still  a  third  group 
took  the  position  that  had  been  taken  by  the  anti-machine 

bill.  At  that  time  Senator  Wright  was  opposing  the  efforts  of 
the  machine  •element.  On  one  occasion  Wright  said:  "Personally 
I  may  say  that  I  will  never  sign  statement  No.  1.  Nevertheless  I 
do  not  believe  that  we  will  have  satisfied  the  people  of  the  State 
if  we  cut  out  this  section."  He  also  said: 

"I  intend  to  reserve  the  right  to  vote  for  whom  I  please  for 
United  States  Senator.  I  shall  always  be  glad  to  get  the  opinion 
of  my  constituents,  but  when  it  comes  to  voting  I  shall  vote  for 
the  man  I  regard  as  best  qualified  for  the  office." 

In  a  letter  to  Senator  Works,  printed  in  the  San  Diego  Union 
July  20,  1910,  Wright  in  a  measure  made  his  position  clear.  He 
said:  "For  your  own  information  I  desire  to  call  your  attention 
to  the  fact  that  I  am  largely  responsible  for  the  law  which  per- 
mits an  advisory  vote  for  United  States  Senators  in  California, 
The  vote  is  advisory  for  Senatorial  or  Assembly  districts  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  the  sentiment  of  the  voters  in  respective 
Senatorial  and  Assembly  districts  and  a  member  of  the  Legisla- 
ture is  at  liberty  to  vote  for  the  choice  of  his  district,  or  for  the 
candidate  for  United  States  Senator  who  has  received  the  endorse- 
ment of  his  party  at  such  primary  election  in  the  greatest  number 
of  districts  electing  members  of  such  party  to  the  Legislature. 
Having  advocated  this  advisory  vote,  it  is  my  intention  to  vote 
and  work  for  the  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate  who  is 
the  choice  of  the  Republican  electors  of  San  Diego  and  Imperial 
counties,  if  I  should  be  elected.  If  that  choice  should  conflict 
with  the  choice  of  the  State  at  large  I  shall  stay  with  the  choice 
of  my  constituents  so  long  as  there  is  a  reasonable  possibility  of 
his  election. 

"You  ask  me  if  I  am  in  favor  of  election  of  United  States 
Senator  by  direct  vote  of  the  people.  You  well  know  that  until 
the  Federal  organic  law  is  modified,  United  States  Senators  cannot 
be  elected  by  direct  vote  of  the  people,  and  you  know  full  well 
that  you  cannot  do  indirectly  that  which  the  law  prohibits  being 
done  directly.  The  Legislature  has  provided  for  an  advisory  vote 
for  United  States  Senator,  and  further  than  that  I  cannot  see 
that  we  can  at  present  consistently  go." 

Wright's  attitude  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  con- 
troversy was  condemned  by  the  Progressive  element.  Said  the 
Fresno  Republican  (Progressive)  in  its  issue  of  Nov.  17,  1910: 

"The  confusion  injected  into  the  primary  law  for  this  express 
purpose  is  having  its  inevitable  result,  in  a  mesh  of  plots  and 
counter-plots  over  the  United  States  Senatorship.  The  law,  which 
by  its  terms  is  'advisory*  merely,  and  not  legally,  but  only  morally 
binding,  was  made  in  its  language,  to  provide  three  alternative 
methods  of  its  own  interpretation,  among  which  each  legislator 
was  to  choose  the  one  which  suited  him  best;  but,  of  all  possible 
interpretations,  this  'moral  advisory'  law  omitted  the  only  mean- 
ing which  is  either  moral  or  advisory.  In  other  words,  the  people 
were  to  vote,  to  advise  the  Legislature,  and  then  the  Legislature 
could  do  with  that  vote  anything  it  liked  except  the  one  obvious 
thing — follow  the  advice.  Specifically,  of  all  possible  methods  of 
understanding  the  advisory  vote  of  the  people,  at  the  party  pri- 


Election  of  United  States  Senator         65 

members  of  the  Legislature  when  the  Direct  Primary 
measure  was  under  consideration,  that  the  district,  ad- 
visory vote  for  United  States  Senator  had  no  more  bind- 
ing effect  than  a  "straw  vote,"  and  for  that  reason,  with- 
out specific  agreement  81a  to  abide  by  it,  no  member  of  the 
Legislature  was  bound  to  regard  it.  This  group  held, 
therefore,  that  the  1911  Legislature  was  at  liberty  to 
elect  Judge  Works  or  Mr.  Spalding,  or  a  third  candidate 
as  it  might  see  fit.82, 

The  majority  of  the  members  of  the  1911  Legislature 
arrived  at  Sacramento  without  any  clearly  defined  posi- 

marles,  the  only  one  not  provided  for  was  the  simple  one — that 
whoever  got  the  most  votes  should  be  the  candidate.  It  Is  scarcely 
necessary  to  add  that  this  confusion  was  injected  into  the  per- 
fectly simple  law  originally  proposed,  by  legislators  who  did  not 
desire  any  sort  of  popular  vote  on  Senator,  and  did  not  propose 
to  take  the  popular  advice,  either  in  the  confused  interpretations 
they  added  to  the  law,  or  in  any  other.  It  may,  however,  be  sig- 
nificant to  recall  that  the  adoption  of  the  worst  of  these  'inter- 
pretations' was  made  possible  only  by  the  treachery  of  Senator 
Leroy  A.  Wright  of  San  Diego,  who  is  now  the  chief  sponsor 
of  an  effort  to  use  that  'interpretation'  to  drive  the  Legislature 
into  electing  a  minority  candidate  whom  the  legislators  do  not 
want,  and  whom  the  people,  by  voting  against  him  at  the  polls, 
said  they  did  not  want." 

sia  Progressive  leaders  advised  those  who  had  pledged  them- 
selves to  abide  by  the  curious  wording  of  the  advisory,  district- 
vote  provision  of  the  1909  Direct  Primary  law,  to  vote  for  Mr. 
Spalding.  Thus  Railroad  Commissioner  John  M.  Eshleman  ad- 
vised Assemblyman  Judson,  who  had  so  pledged  himself,  that  it 
was  his  (Judson's)  duty  to  vote  for  Spalding. 

82  This  view  was  expressed  by  the  San  Francisco  Star  as  fol- 
lows: "The  California  law  contains  no  provision,  as  does  the 
Oregon  law,  by  which  the  candidate  for  the  Legislature  is  given 
the  alternative  of  pledging  himself  or  refusing  to  be  pledged. 
The  machine  element  which  is  supporting  Spalding  struck  this 
provision  from  the  bill. 

"For  the  machine  element  now  to  attempt  to  bluff  the  anti- 
machine  element  of  the  Legislature  into  voting  for  Mr.  Spalding 
solely  because  of  their  own  provision  in  the  Direct  Primary  law, 
which  was  purposely  so  worded  as  to  be  binding  upon  none,  is 
about  as  astonishing  a  bit  of  political  piracy  as  ever  was  at- 
tempted in  California. 

"That  the  anti-machine  members  of  the  Legislature  will  per- 
mit themselves  to  be  bluffed  is  unthinkable. 

"Such  members  of  them  as  may  have  definitely  pledged  them- 
selves to  observe  the  provision  of  the  Direct  Primary  law  as  re- 
gards United  States  Senators,  are  of  course  bound  by  it.  Pre- 

8 


66         Election  of  United  States  Senator 

tion  on  the  Senatorial  contest.  Under  ordinary  condi- 
tions the  machine  would  have  followed  the  procedure 
usually  taken  in  such  situations.  The  members  of  the 
Democratic  minority  would  have  been  eliminated  from 
the  contest  under  the  theory  that  they,  being  Democrats, 
could  take  no  part  in  the  election  of  a  Republican  to  the 
Upper  House  of  Congress.  Thus  set  to  one  side,  the 
Democratic  members  would  have  cast  numberless,  mean- 
ingless, complimentary  votes  for  Senator,  while  the  Re- 
publican members  fought  among  themselves.83 

With  the  Democrats  thus  happily  disposed  of,  if  a 
Senator  satisfactory  to  the  machine  element  could  not  be 
elected,  a  deadlock  could  have  been  forced  which  would 
have  prevented  the  election  of  any  United  States  Senator 
at  all.84 

clsely  as  they  are  bound  by  any  other  pledge.  But  in  the  absence 
of  such  definite  pledge  there  is  nothing  binding  upon  them. 

"They  are  at  liberty  to  vote  for  Mr.  Spalding,  Judge  Works, 
John  Brown,  Richard  Roe  or  John  Doe,  as  they  see  fit. 

"The  Star  trusts  that  they  will  vote  for  the  most  desirable 
candidate,  the  candidate  whom  they  believe  will  make  California 
and  the  Nation  the  best  Senator. 

"Incidentally  The  Star  hopes  the  experience  of  the  last  few 
months  with  a  meaningless  and  unsatisfactory  provision  for  bind- 
ing the  Legislature  to  abide  by  the  choice  of  the  electors,  will 
awaken  the  Legislature  to  the  necessity  of  giving  California  an 
effective  law  to  this  end  such  as  is  enjoyed  by  Oregon. 

"The    machine   element   will    oppose   such   legislation. 

"No  intelligent  and  at  the  same  time  honest  member  of  the 
Legislature  will  refuse  to  support  it." 

83  This  was  the  course  taken  in  the  Grant-Burns  Senatorial 
deadlock  in  1899.  For  nearly  three  months,  the  Democratic  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature  permitted  themselves  to  be  denied  a  voice 
in  naming  the  Senator,  when,  by  combining  the  33  votes  which 
they  had  in  the  Legislature  of  that  year  with  those  of  the  Re- 
publicans who  opposed  the  Burns  element,  they  would  have  been 
able  to  elect  some  worthy  citizen  to  the  Federal  Senate.  Rather 
than  be  guilty  of  such  political  heresy,  however,  they  saw  the 
session  adjourn  without  electing  any  United  States  Senator  at  all. 

8*  To  elect  a  Federal  Senator,  a  majority  of  the  votes  of  the 
Legislature  is  required — in  California  61  out  of  the  120  in  Senate 
and  Assembly.  In  the  1911  Legislature  were  19  Democrats  and 
101  Republicans.  By  scattering  the  votes  of  41  Republicans  among 
various  Senatorial  candidates,  the  Reactionaries  would  have  pre- 
vented any  candidate  securing  the  necessary  61  votes  to  elect. 


Election  of  United  States  Senator         67 

Had  the  Progressive  Republicans  faltered  in  their 
course  during  the  first  days  of  the  session,  it  is  not  un- 
likely that  such  a  situation  would  have  been  created,  as 
at  the  session  of  1899.  Had  a  less  positive  stand  been 
taken  in  the  organization  of  Senate  and  Assembly,  for 
example,  had  any  weakness  been  shown  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  committees,  had  Stafford  won  his  fight  for 
Sergeant-at-Arms  of  the  Assembly,  or  any  other  com- 
paratively unimportant  incident  demonstrated  the  inabil- 
ity of  the  Progressives  to  hold  their  position,  there  would 
have  been  an  immediate  loss  to  the  Progressive  side  of 
that  element  of  the  Legislature  which  was  waiting  to 
join  with  the  probable  majority. 

But  not  only  did  the  Progressives  hold  their  position, 
but  they  grew  stronger,  during  the  first  month  of  the 
session,  with  every  move. 

By  far  the  greatest  strength  came  from  Johnson's 
inaugural  address.  The  reading  of  this  message  did 
more  in  the  issue  under  discussion,  to  strengthen  the  po- 
sition of  the  Progressives  than  all  else  combined.  That 
address  at  once  lifted  the  Legislature  out  of  the  sordid- 
ness  of  partisanship  in  which  the  machine  element  had 
long  held  it.  The  Democratic  members  saw  that  at  the. 
1911  session,  at  least,  good  citizenship  was  to  be  placed 
above  partisanship.  At  once,  every  Democratic  member 
worth  while  aligned  himself  on  the  side  of  Progressive 
policies,  a  course  which  carried  him  into  the  Pro- 
gressive camp  in  the  fight  for  the  election  of  United 
States  Senator.85 

85  "If  my  vote  is  needed  for  Judge  Works  on  the  first  ballot," 
said  Senator  Campbell  (D)  the  day  after  Johnson's  address  had 
been  made  public,  "I  shall  vote  for  Judge  Works."  Senators 
Camlnettl  and  Juilliard,  Assemblyman  Grlffln  and  other  Demo- 
cratic leaders  expressed  the  same  view. 


68         Election  of  United  States  Senator 

A  movement  had  been  started  to  give  Congressman- 
elect  Raker  the  Democratic  complimentary  vote,  and  sev- 
eral Progressive  Democrats  were  desirous  of  thus  recog- 
nizing him,  but  they  were  even  more  desirous  that  no 
slip  should  come  in  the  election  of  a  Progressive  to  the 
Federal  Senate.  They  regarded  the  election  of  a  Pro- 
gressive as  part  of  the  necessary  work  which,  as  Senators 
and  Assemblymen,  they  were  called  upon  to  perform, 
not  as  Democrats,  but  as  representatives  of  The  People 
of  California. 

Republicans  who  had  been  as  wobbly  in  the  Senatorial 
fight  as  they  were  uncertain  of  their  position  on  Pro- 
gressive policies,  after  the  reading  of  Johnson's  address 
joined  with  the  more  positive  Progressives  in  the  Sena- 
torial contest. 

Judge  Works,  for  the  sole  reason  that  he  had  received 
the  highest  vote  at  the  polls,  had  been  selected  as  the 
logical  Progressive  candidate.86  After  the  reading  of 
Johnson's  message,  his  election  was  conceded  by  all  who 
were  in  touch  with  conditions  at  Sacramento.87 

The  Reactionary  element,  led  by  the  San  Francisco 


86  Judge  Works  was  not  accepted  as  the  logical  candidate  be- 
cause he  was  the  spontaneous,  unanimous  choice  of  the  members 
of   the  Legislature   personally.     He  was   elected   because   he   came 
nearer  being  the  popular  choice  for  the  Federal  Senate  than  any 
other  candidate.     The  same  motive  which  led  State  Senator  Cam- 
inetti  at   the  1909   session   to  break  through   the  cobwebs  of  par- 
tisan superstition,  and  vote  for  Federal  Senator  Perkins,  prompted 
many  at  the  1911  session  to  vote  for  Judge  Works. 

87  The    question    as    to   whether    the   block   of   votes   popularly 
supposed   to    have   been   controlled   by   Senator   Tom   Finn  of   San 
Francisco  was  necessary  for  the  election  of  Judge  Works  has  been 
raised.     The   outcome   does  not  indicate   it.     The  most  votes  ever 
credited    to    Finn   were   ten.     On    the   first   ballot,    Works   received 
92    votes,    31    more    than    were    necessary    for    election.     Finn's    10 
votes  could  have  been  dispensed  with,  and  still  Works  would  have 
had   21    to   spare.     But   the  Finn   votes   didn't   have   to   be   spared 
in  such  a  situation.     Had  they  been  really  needed,  however,   they 
might  not  have  been  so  available. 


Election  of  United  States  Senator         69 

Call,  had,  however,  started  a  campaign  for  Mr.  Spalding. 
The  Call  vilified  those  who  had  announced  themselves 
for  Judge  Works,  much  as  that  publication  had  .in 
March,  1909,  vilified  those  anti-machine  Senators  and 
Assemblymen  who  were  laboring  to  save  the  Direct  Pri- 
mary law  from  amendment  at  the  hands  of  the  "machine" 
element.  The  Reactionary  press  throughout  the  State 
joined  with  the  Call  in  its  campaign  of  abuse  88  and  mis- 
representation.89 

But,  from  the  first,  Spalding's  fight  lacked  the  vital- 
ity which,  in  the  case  of  Colonel  D.  M.  Burns,  twelve 
years  before,  had  made  the  1899  Senatorial  deadlock  pos- 
sible. 

When  the  issue  finally  came  to  vote,  Senator  Works 
received  62  votes  in  the  Assembly,  one  more  than  was 
necessary  for  his  election,  even  though  he  had  not  re- 


88  An    example    of   this    misrepresentation   was    the    San    Fran- 
cisco Examiner's  publication  of  a  statement  that  the  Thirty-ninth 
Senatorial    District,    represented    by    Senator    Estudillo,    had    gone 
for    Spalding,    and    therefore    Estudillo    was    bound    to    vote    for 
Spalding.     As   a   matter   of  fact,    the   Thirty-ninth    Senatorial   Dis- 
trict went  for  Works,   giving  him   2,538  votes,   and    Spalding  only 
1,861.     Thus,  under  the  terms  of  the  district,  advisory  plan  itself, 
which  the  machine  had  succeeded  in  forcing  into  the  law,   Estu- 
dillo was  "at  liberty"   to  vote  for  Works.     The  Reactionary  small 
fry  of  the  press  from  one  end  of  the  State  to  the  other  took  the 
Examiner's  story  up,   however,   and  abused  Estudillo  like  a  pick- 
pocket for  refusing  "to  be  bound  by  the  decision  of  his  district," 
and  vote  for  Spalding. 

89  A   characteristic   story  was   started   that  unless   members   of 
the   Assembly   agreed   to   vote   for  Works    they    could   not   secure 
desirable  committee  appointments.     In  one  instance  the  story  was 
made  to  apply  to  Assembly  Crosby  of  Alameda,  who  was  seeking 
an    important    committee    chairmanship.     Speaker    Hewitt,    a    few 
days   before    the   balloting  for   United    States    Senator    took   place, 
called    Crosby   into   his    private    office   and   asked   him   abruptly   if 
anyone  had  told  him  he  could  not  get  a  committee  chairmanship 
unless  he  voted  for  Works.    Without  waiting  for  a  reply,  Hewitt 
told  Crosby   that   he    (the   Speaker)    was   naming   the   committees, 
and  regardless  of  Crosby's  vote  for  Senator,   Crosby  was  to  have 
a  chairmanship. 


70         Election  of  United  States  Senator 

ceived  a  single  vote  in  the  Senate;  Spalding  received  16 
and  Meserve  I.90 

In  the  Senate,  Works  received  30  votes ;  Spalding  5 ; 
Raker  (D.)  3,  and  William  Kent  I.91 

For  the  first  time  in  the  political  history  of  California 
the  anti-machine  element  of  both  parties  had  united  in 
the  election  of  a  United  States  Senator,  and  had  come 
within  twenty-eight  votes  of  making  him  the  unanimous 
choice  of  the  Legislature.92 

»o  The  Assembly  vote  for  United  States  Senator  was  as  follows: 

For  Spalding— Bennink,  Brown,  Coghlan,  Cronin,  Freeman,  Grif- 
fiths, Hayes,  Hinkle,  Joel,  Judson,  Kehoe,  Lynch,  March,  Schmitt, 
Stevenot  and  Williams — 16. 

For  Works — Beatty,  Beckett.  Benedict,  Bishop,  Bohnett,  Butler, 
Callaghan,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Cogswell,  Crosby,  Cunning- 
ham, Denegri,  Farwell,  Feeley,  Fitzgerald,  Flint,  Gaylord,  Gerdes, 
Griffin,  Guill,  Hall,  Hamilton,  Harlan,  Hewitt,  Hinshaw,  Jasper, 
Jones,  Kennedy,  Lamb,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Lyon  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, Maher,  Malone,  McDonald,  McGowen,  Mendenhall,  Mott, 
Mullally,  Nolan,  Polsley,  Preisker,  Randall,  Rimlinger,  Rodgers  of 
San  Francisco,  Rogers  of  Alameda,  Rosendale,  Rutherford,  Ryan, 
Sbragia,  Slater,  Smith,  Stuckenbruck,  Sutherland,  Telfer,  Tibbits, 
"Walker,  Walsh,  "Wilson,  Wyllie  and  Young — 62. 

For  Meserve — Held — 1. 

91  The  Senate  vote  for  United  States  Senator  was  as  follows: 

For   Spalding — Bills,    Cassidy,    Martinelli,   Wolfe   and   Wright — 5. 

For  Works — Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boynton,  Bryant, 
Burnett,  Caminetti,  Cartwright,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Finn,  Gates, 
Hans,  Hewitt,  Hurd,  Juilliard,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Regan,  Roseberryi 
Rush,  Shanahan,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  Walker 
and  Welch — 30. 

For   Raker — Curtin,    Hare   and    Sanford — 3. 

For  Kent — Holohan — 1. 

»2  Several  members  of  Senate  and  Assembly  had  explanations 
of  their  vote  printed  in  the  Journal.  Their  explanations  will  be 
found  in  the  appendix. 


CHAPTER  V. 
AMENDMENT  OF  THE  DIRECT  PRIMARY  LAW.98 

The  /pop  Measure  Was  Amended  to  Provide  that  United 
States  Senators  Shall  be  Nominated  Under  the  Ore- 
gon Plan,  and  the  Provisions  Which  Placed  Unneces- 
sary Burdens  Upon  Primary  Candidates  for  Office 
Were  Stricken  From  the  Law. 

The  two  principal  objections  made  by  the  Progressive 
element  to  the  Wright-Stanton  Direct  Primary  law,  as 
passed  at  the  1909  session,  were: 

(1)  That  unnecessary  partisan  provisions  and  re- 
strictions made  it  difficult  for  a  citizen  to  become  a  can- 
didate for  office.9* 

(2)  That  the  measure  contained  no  practical  pro- 
vision for  the  nomination  of  United  States  Senators  by 
direct  vote  of  The  People. 

Although  these  defects  were   recognized,   the  anti- 

93  For  the  manner  in  which  the  undesirable  features  of  the  1909 
Direct    Primary   law    were   forced    into    that   measure,    see    "Story 
of  the  California  Legislature   of  1909,"   Chapters  VIII,   IX,   X,   XI. 

94  The    effect  of   this   partisan    feature   was   well    illustrated    at 
the    San    Francisco    municipal    primaries    in    the    summer    of    1909. 
Francis  J.   Heney  attempted  to  become  a  candidate  for  the  office 
of    District    Attorney.     The    situation    in    that    city    required    that 
Heney  be  elected   District  Attorney  in  order  that  vigorous  prose- 
cution of  bribe-givers  might  continue.     Heney  had  voted  for  Taft 
at   the  previous  election.     He  could  not,   therefore,    under  the  ex- 
treme   partisan    features    of    the    Direct    Primary    law,    become    a 
primary   candidate   on  any   ticket  but  the  Republican. 

Recognizing  this,  the  corrupt  element  at  San  Francisco  regis- 
tered even  Union  Laborites  and  Democrats  who  could  be  forced  to 
such  a  course,  as  Republicans.  Reputable  Republicans  were  fairly 


72    Amendment  of  the  Direct  Primary  Law 

machine  leaders  hesitated  about  announcing  definite  pol- 
icy for  their  correction. 

This  was  particularly  true  of  the  defect  in  the  law 
in  the  matter  of  nominating  Senators  by  direct  vote,  and 
making  that  vote  effective  and  binding. 

Although  the  reform  leaders  at  the  1909  session  of 
the  Legislature  recognized  that  the  only  practical  method 
of  naming  United  States  Senators  by  direct  vote  is  un- 
der the  Oregon  plan,  they  were  prepared  to  compromise 
with  the  machine  on  this  issue,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
although  it  was  discussed,  the  Oregon  plan  was  at  no 
time  provided  in  the  Direct  Primary  measure  which  was 
considered  at  that  session.  As  was  seen  in  the  previous 
chapter,  the  best  that  the  anti-machine  element  asked  for 
at  the  1909  session  was  a  State- wide  vote — within  the 
several  parties — for  United  States  Senator,  and  the  ma- 
chinery to  make  the  result  of  the  vote  binding. 

When  the  Lincoln-Roosevelt  Republican  League  held 
their  State  meeting  at  Oakland  in  November,  1909,  in- 
stead of  declaring  for  the  Oregon  plan,  the  League  took 
the  same  uncertain  position  attempted  by  the  anti-ma- 
chine element  at  the  1909  session,  and  announced  itself 


swamped  by  the  collection  of  miscellaneous  political  scum  that 
went  on  the  Register  as  members  of  the  Republican  party. 

For  Heney  to  have  run  as  a  Republican  would  have  meant  his 
defeat.  Under  a  second  provision  of  the  codes,  Heney,  defeated  at 
the  primaries,  could  not  have  become  an  independent  candidate. 
Accordingly,  Heney,  blocked  by  the  provisions  of  the  Direct  Pri- 
mary law,  did  not  enter  the  primary  race  at  all. 

The  Democrats  of  San  Francisco  wanted  Heney  nominated,  but 
under  the  partisan  provisions  of  the  Direct  Primary  law  were 
denied  the  privilege  of  putting  his  name  on  their  primary  ticket. 

But  there  was  no  law  against  individual  Democrats  writing 
Heney's  name  on  their  primary  ballots.  This  they  did.  Enough 
of  them  did  so  to  make  Heney  the  Democratic  nominee  for  District 
Attorney. 

Under  the  terms  of  the  Direct  Primary  law,  Heney's  name  could 
not  have  been  placed  on  the  Democratic  primary  ticket. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Democrats  nominated  him. 


Amendment  of  the  Direct  Primary  Law    73 

as  favoring  the  compromise,  within-the-party  plan  which 
had  been  provided  in  the  original  draft  of  the  1909  Direct 
Primary  measure.95 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  machine  had  been  routed 
at  the  1910  primaries,  the  reform  leaders  were  apparently 
afraid  to  take  positive  position  on  this  important  question. 
Although  in  control  of  the  Republican  State  Convention, 
and  declaring  for  the  policy  of  electing  United  States 
Senators  by  direct  vote,  the  Progressives  who  framed  the 
Republican  State  platform  failed  to  declare  definitely  for 
the  Oregon  plan.96 

Even  after  the  final  election,  the  Republican  State 
Senators  who  met  at  Santa  Barbara  hesitated  about  an- 
nouncing for  the  Oregon  plan,  and  did  not.  And  the 
Committee  appointed  by  the  Republican  State  Central 
Committee  to  propose  amendments  to  the  Direct  Pri- 
mary law,  very  carefully  refrained  from  recommending 


»5  The  League's  declaration  of  principles  contained  the  follow- 
ing provision  for  the  popular  selection  of  Federal  Senators: 

""We  demand  that  the  next  Legislature  adopt  in  proper  form 
and  transmit  to  Congress  an  act  or  joint  resolution  favoring 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  providing  for 
the  election  of  United  States  Senators  by  direct  vote  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  pending  the  adoption  of  such  amendment  we  urge  that  the 
existing  primary  election  law  be  so  amended  as  to  afford  a  State- 
wide advisory  expression  of  party  opinion  as  to  their  election." 

96  The  plank  in  the  Republican  1910  State  platform  on  the  elec- 
tion of  United  States  Senators,  reads  as  follows: 

"We  recommend  the  enactment  by  the  next  Legislature,  and 
transmission  to  Congress,  of  an  act  or  joint  resolution  favoring 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  providing 
for  the  election  of  the  United  States  Senators  by  direct  vote  of 
the  people,  and  pending  the  adoption  of  this  Federal  amendment, 
such  a  revision  of  the  primary  law  of  the  State  as  shall  afford  a 
State-at-large  advisory  vote  as  to  the  election  of  United  States 
Senators." 


74    Amendment  of  the  Direct  Primary  Law 

the  Oregon  procedure 9T  but  clung  to  the  "within-the- 
party  vote." 

The  Reactionary  press  was  quick  to  take  advantage  of 
this  hesitancy. 

Soon  after  the  meeting  of  State  Senators  at  Santa 
Barbara,  the  San  Francisco  Call,  in  an  editorial  article 98 

97  The   committee's   findings   were: 

"As  respects  the  selection  of  a  party  nominee  for  United  States 
Senator,  the  primary  bill  originally  introduced  differs  from  the 
present  law  in  two  important  particulars.  Your  committee  will  at- 
tempt to  discuss  these  in  the  abstract,  irrespective  of  any  pending 
situation. 

"1st.  The  bill  as  first  introduced  provided  for  the  test  as  to 
the  selection  of  a  candidate  for  United  States  Senator,  that  such 
candidate  should  receive  the  highest  State-wide  vote  cast  by  h!s 
party  on  the  proposition.  The  present  law  provides  that  the  legis- 
lative candidate  shall  be  bound  either  by  the  vote  of  his  own  dis- 
trict or  by  the  vote  of  a  plurality  of  districts. 

"2nd,  and  most  important,  as  it  seems  to  your  committee,  the 
present  law  seeks  to  bind  the  legislator-elect  to  do  one  of  two 
things  on  a  matter  which  the  Constitution  commits  to  his  discre- 
tion alone  irrespective  of  the  attempted  compulsion  of  any  statute. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  bill  as  originally  proposed,  provided  that 
the  legislative  candidate  might  do  one  of  three  things,  in  this 
provision  differing  from  the  present  law  by  at  once  being  a  step 
toward  a  direct  vote  for  Senator,  yet  at  the  same  time  following 
the  Constitution  by  naming  the  only  things  the  candidates  could 
possibly  do.  The  three  things  provided  for  the  candidate  to  do 
were  as  follows: 

"(a)  He  may  covenant  with  his  constituents  that  he  will  vote 
for  that  candidate  for  United  States  Senator  who  shall  have  re- 
ceived the  largest  State-wide  vote  in  his  party.  This  agreement 
when  signed  constitutes  a  moral  obligation  on  the  legislator-elect, 
which  an  extraneous  statute  cannot  possibly  provide.  Moreover, 
it  approaches  within  party  lines  nearest  to  the  popular  demand 
for  a  direct  vote  for  Senator,  and  as  such  is  almost  universally 
signed  by  candidates  in  all  States  which  contain  the  provision. 

"(b)  He  may  sign  a  statement  to  his  constituents  that  he  will 
regard  the  forthcoming  State-wide  advisory  vote  as  recommenda- 
tory  and  nothing  more,  at  the  same  time  announcing  to  them 
that  he  will  wholly  disregard  it  if  he  sees  fit. 

"(c)  He  may  neglect  or  refuse  to  do  either  of  these  things. 

"Recommendation.  Your  committee  would  recommend  the  elim- 
ination of  the  proviso  in  Section  2,  sub-Section  1,  relating  to 
United  States  Senator,  and  the  inclusion  in  Section  5,  sub-Section 
4,  the  provision  above  recited  as  occurring  in  the  original  draft 
of  the  bill.  The  committee  so  recommends,  as  it  regards  these 
provisions  the  only  kind  of  provisions  which  are  constitutional 
and  legally  binding  as  well  as  an  agreement  with  the  candidate's 
constituents,  and  therefore  also  morally  binding." 

98  The  article  was  headed,    "No   Program   for  this   Legislature, 
and  no  Leader  but  Johnson."     The  article  was  so  evident  in  its 
intent  "to  honey"   Johnson   into  line  as  to  be  amusing. 


Amendment  of  the  Direct  Primary  Law    75 

intimated  that  an  agreement  had  been  made  "by  Johnson, 
Wallace  and  an  impressive  minority  of  the  Senate,  that 
the  amendments  to  the  Direct  Primary  election  law  shall 
be  confined  to  remedying  the  defects  pointed  out  in  the 
State  platform."  The  Call  denounced  the  Oregon  plan 
on  the  ground  that  the  system  "would  take  the  United 
States  Senatorship  out  of  the  realm  of  partisanship."  " 
Into  the  midst  of  this  situation  so  well  calculated  to 
result  in  the  defeat  of  a  practical  reform,  came,  as  a  new 
factor,  Governor  Johnson's  inaugural  address.  Johnson 
did  not  hesitate.  He  pointed  out  that  "notwithstanding 
the  popular  demand  expressed  now  for  a  quarter  of  a 
century  that  United  States  Senators  should  be  elected  by 

»9  The  Fresno  Republican  showed  the  weakness  of  the  Call's 
position.  "The  Oregon  system  is  in  effect,"  said  the  Republican, 
"the  exact  system  that  would  be  brought  about  by  the  amend- 
ment to  the  Federal  Constitution  which  both  parties  have  en- 
dorsed, which  the  majority  of  the  States  in  the  Union,  including 
California,  have  formally  approved,  and  which  the  Call  itself  ad- 
vocates. It  would  no  more  'take  the  United  States  Senatorship 
out  of  the  realm  of  partisanship"  than  the  office  of  Governor,  or 
Congressman  is  now  out  of  that  realm.  It  should  leave  partisan 
candidates  for  United  States  Senator  to  be  nominated  at  party 
primaries,  like  all  other  candidates,  and  then  to  be  voted  for 
by  their  whole  people  at  the  general  election,  like  all  other  candi- 
dates. The  one  difference  would  be  that,  pending  an  amendment 
to  the  Federal  Constitution,  candidates  for  the  Legislature  would 
have  to  pledge  themselves  (or  run  the  risk  of  defeat  for  not 
pledging)  to  ratify  the  advice  of  the  voters  at  the  election. 

"If  we  are  going  to  have  the  direct  choice  of  United  States 
Senators  at  all,  this  is  the  way  to  get  it.  And  however  some  of 
us  may  debate  that  issue  academically,  the  American  people  have 
decided  that  they  want  the  direct  election  of  Senators,  and  we 
may  as  well  submit  to  that  decision.  We  shall  have  to  do  so, 
soon,  anyway.  Oregon  has  pointed  the  way,  and  the  rest  of  us 
have  only  to  decide  whether  we  will  go  that  way  by  one  step,  two 
or  three.  California  has  taken  the  first  step  of  a  three-step 
series.  If,  as  seems  likely,  the  Legislature  will  prefer  to  go  the 
remaining  way  in  two  steps  instead  of  one,  taking  only  the  one 
step  now,  we  have  no  objections.  It  is  a  purely  practical  question 
of  how  fast  The  People  are  ready  to  move.  If  it  is  easier  to 
move  slow  than  fast,  let  us  move  slow.  But  why  should  any 
one,  thinking  ahead  and  viewing  the  question  as  a  whole,  blink 
his  eyes  to  the  plain  fact  that  there  is  no  stopping  until  we  go 
the  whole  Oregon  way,  and  no  reason  except  public  inertia  (if 
it  be  determined  that  exists)  why  we  should  hesitate  to  go  the 
whole  way  now?" 


j6    Amendment  of  the  Direct  Primary  Law 

direct  vote  of  The  People,  we  have  been  unable  to  amend 
the  Federal  Constitution,  but  The  People  in  more  than 
half  the  States  are  striving  to  effect  the  same  result  by 
indirection." 

Stating  that  it  is  not  extravagant  to  say  that  nine 
electors  out  of  ten  in  California  desire  the  electorate  di- 
rectly to  chose  United  States  Senators,  Johnson  suggested 
that  the  Direct  Primary  law  be  amended  so  there  be  a 
State-wide  advisory  vote  for  United  States  Senator, 
"and,"  he  proceeded,  "the  logical  result  of  a  desire  to 
elect  United  States  Senators  by  direct  vote  of  The  Peo- 
ple is  that  that  election  shall  be  of  any  person  who  may 
be  a  candidate,  no  matter  what  party  he  may  be  affiliated 
with.  For  that  reason  I  favor  the  Oregon  plan,  as  it  is 
termed,  whereby  the  candidate  for  this  office,  as  for  any 
other  office,  may  be  voted  for,  and  by  which  the  candi- 
date receiving  the  highest  number  of  votes  may  be  ulti- 
mately selected." 

Johnson  dealt  with  those  provisions  of  the  law,  which 
made  primary  election  unnecessarily  expensive  and  diffi- 
cult for  the  citizen  who  wished  to  become  a  candidate  for 
office,  no  less  boldly  than  he  had  considered  the  section 
providing  for  the  nomination  of  Federal  Senators.  "I 
think,"  said  the  Governor,  "that  the  desire  is  general  to 
remedy  these  defects." 

This  positive  note  had  its  effect.  Those  in  charge  of 
the  bill  came  out  positively  for  the  Oregon  plan  of  nomi- 
nating United  States  Senators,  and  for  such  changes  as 
would  relieve  the  citizen  who  would  become  a  primary 
candidate  for  office,  of  the  unnecessary  trouble  and  ex- 
pense which  the  1909  law  imposed  upon  him. 

The  recasting  of  the  measure  along  the  lines  sug- 


Amendment  of  the  Direct  Primary  Law    77 

gested  required  much  labor,  and  the  bill  was  not  ready 
for  introduction  until  February  10.  Boynton  introduced 
the  measure  in  the  Senate,  and  Young  in  the  Assembly. 

The  bulk  of  the  labor  of  preparing  the  bill  for  the 
consideration  of  the  Legislature  fell  upon  those  two  gen- 
tlemen. 

The  offensive  partisan  feature,100  which  had  created 
so  much  friction,  was  stricken  from  the  law.  The  nomi- 
nation of  candidates  for  judicial  or  school  office  was 
placed  on  a  non-partisan  basis.  This  was  accomplished 
by  requiring  that  the  names  of  all  candidates  for  school 
or  judicial  offices  regardless  of  their  party  affiliations  be 
placed  on  all  the  primary  ballots.101 

The  number  of  signatures  to  validate  a  petition  for 
place  on  a  Primary  ticket  was  fixed  at  not  less  than  one 
per  centum  or  more  than  two  per  centum  of  the  voters 
of  the  party  in  the  political  subdivision  in  which  the  can- 
didate seeks  office.  Exception  was  made  in  the  case  of 
candidates  for  judicial  office  and  school  office,  the  mini- 
mum of  signatures  being  fixed  at  one-half  of  one  per 

100  Under  the  1909  law  the  primary  candidate  was  required  to 
file    an    affidavit,    "stating    .     .     .    the   name    of   his    party    .    .    . 
that   he   affiliated    with    said    party   at   the    last    preceding    general 
election,   and   either  that   he  did    not   vote   thereat   or  voted   for  a 
majority    of   the   candidates   of    said    party    at    said    next    preceding 
general  election,  and  intends  to  so  vote  at  the  ensuing  election." 

In  the  1911  measure,  the  words  printed  above  in  black  were 
stricken  out  and  for  them  substituted,  "he  (the  candidate)  in- 
tends to  affiliate  with  said  party  and  vote  for  a  majority  of  the 
candidates  of  said  party  at  the  ensuing  general  election." 

101  This  provision  is  unique.     The  effect  of  it  is  to  make  even 
the    nomination    of    school    and    judicial    candidates    non-partisan. 
The  most  earnest  advocate  of  a  non-partisan  judiciary  at  the  1909 
session    did    not   so    much    as    suggest   a    reform    so    radical.     The 
provision  of  the  1911  law  provides:     "The  group  of  names  of  can- 
didates for  nomination   to  any  judicial  office   or  any  school  office 
shall    include    all    the    names    receiving    the    requisite    number    of 
nomination  papers  for  such  office,  and  shall  be  identical  for  each 
such  office  on  the  primary  election  ballots  of  each  political  party 
participating  at  the  primary  election." 


78    Amendment  of  the  Direct  Primary  Law 

cent.102  Under  the  1909  law,  the  minimum  of  signatures 
required  for  a  State  office  was  one  per  cent,  running  up 
to  three  per  cent,  for  local  offices,  with  a  maximum  of 
ten  per  cent,  in  all  cases.103  The  unnecessarily  long  pri- 
mary and  final  campaigns,  which,  as  provided  under  the 
old  law  worked  great  hardships  upon  candidates,  were 
shortened.  The  several  changes  went  far  toward  lifting 
the  unnecessary  burdens  which  the  1909  law  put  upon 
candidates,  and  incidentally  removed  reasonable  objec- 
tions to  the  Direct  Primary  system  as  it  had  been  given 
expression  in  the  old  measure. 

Provisions  for  nominating  and  electing  United  States 
Senators  under  the  Oregon  plan  were  incorporated  into 
the  bill.104  Under  these  provisions  candidates  of  the  sev- 
eral parties  for  United  States  Senators  were  given  pre- 
cisely the  same  footing  as  other  candidates  for  State 
office.  Provision  was  also  made  for  certifying  to  their 
nomination,  and  placing  their  names  on  the  final  ballot. 
Further  provision  was  made  in  another  act,  for  present- 
ing the  name  of  the  candidate  who  receives  the  highest 

102  The    Committee    appointed    by    the    Progressive    Republican 
State   Central  Committee  to  deal  with   the  Direct  Primary  meas- 
ure, recommended  that  the  percentage  of  signatures  be  fixed  at  a 
minimum   of  one-half  of  one   per  cent,    and   not   more   than  two 
per  cent,  in  the  case  of  all  candidates  for  State  offices. 

103  The  committee  appointed  by  the   Republican   State  Central 
Committee  to  revise  the  Direct  Primary  law  had  suggested  that 
for  State  offices  the  percentage  be  made  one-half  of  one  per  cent. 
The  committee  even  considered  doing  away  with  nomination  peti- 
tions entirely,  as  did  those  members  of  the  Legislature  who  were 
consulted  in  the  drawing  of  the  1911  measure.     But  the  idea  was 
rejected  on  the  ground  that  some  restrictions  on  nominations  are 
necessary. 

104  Consistent   with    this    course    was    the    adoption    without    a 
dissenting  vote  in  either  House  of  Senate  Joint  Resolution  No.  1, 
requesting  Congress  to  call  a  convention  for  the  purpose  of  sub- 
mitting  an  amendment  to   the  Constitution   of   the   United   States 
calling  for  the  election   of   United  States   Senators  by  the   direct 
vote  of  The  People.  . 


Amendment  of  the  Direct  Primary  Law    79 

vote  for  United  States  Senator  at  the  final  election,  to 
the  Legislature  as  the  choice  of  The  People  for  that 
office.105 

To  bind  the  members  of  the  Legislature  to  observe 
this  choice,  it  was  provided  that  candidates  for  State 
Senate  and  Assembly  might  sign  and  file  with  their 
nomination  papers  one  of  two  statements.108 

Under  the  first  statement,  the  legislative  candidate 
pledges  himself  during  his  term  of  office,  if  elected,  to 
vote  for  that  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate 
who  shall  have  received  the  highest  vote  at  the  general 
election.  The  second  statement  sets  forth  that  the  can- 
didate, if  elected,  will  consider  the  vote  for  United  States 
Senator  as  nothing  more  than  a  recommendation,  which 
he  shall  be  at  liberty  wholly  to  disregard. 

The  measure  does  not  require  the  legislative  candidate 
to  sign  either  one  of  these  statements.  Indeed,  it  is  ex- 
pressly provided  in  the  act  that  "his  failure  to  include 
either  of  such  statements  shall  not  be  a  valid  ground  on 

105  Committee  substitute  for  Senate  Bill  9,  introduced  by  Cam- 
inetti,   "An  act  to  enable  The  People  of  the  State  of  California  to 
express    by    ballot    their    preference    for    some    person    for   United 
States  Senator."     But  one  of  the  120  members  of  the  Legislature 
voted  against  this  bill,   Senator  Leroy  A.  Wright  of  San  Diego. 

106  The  statements  in  full  are  as  follows: 

"Statement  No.  1 — I  further  declare  to  The  People  of  California 

and  to  The  People  of  the (Senatorial  or  Assembly)  District  that 

during  my  term  of  office,  without  regard  to  my  individual  prefer- 
ence, I  will  always  vote  for  that  candidate  for  United  States 
Senator  in  Congress  who  shall  have  received  for  that  office  the 
highest  number  of  the  votes  cast  for  that  position  at  the  general 
election  next  preceding  the  election  of  a  Senator  in  Congress." 

If  the  candidate  be  unwilling  to  sign  the  above  statement,  he 
may  include  with  his  affldivat  the  following  statement: 

"Statement  No.  2 — I  further  declare  to  The  People  of  Cali- 
fornia and  to  The  People  of  the (Senatorial  or  Assembly)  Dis- 
trict, that  during  my  term  of  office  I  shall  consider  the  vote  of  The 
People  for  United  States  Senator  in  Congress  as  nothing  more 
than  a  recommendation,  which  I  shall  be  at  liberty  wholly  to  dis- 
regard, if  the  reasons  for  so  doing  seem  to  me  sufficient." 


80    Amendment  of  the  Direct  Primary  Law 

the  part  of  the  Secretary  of  State  for  refusal  to  receive 
and  file  his  nomination  paper  or  papers." 

But  the  means  is  provided  for  the  fullest  publicity  of 
the  legislative  candidate's  action  regarding  the  statements. 
The  measure  provides  that  on  the  ballot  used  at  the  pri- 
maries as  well  as  on  the  sample  primary  ballot  shall 
appear  the  words  under  the  name  of  each  candidate  for 
State  Senator  or  Assembly,  "Signed  Statement  No.  1," 
or  "Signed  Statement  No.  2,"  or  "Signed  neither  state- 
ment," as  the  case  may  be. 

In  the  event  of  the  candidates  having  refused  or 
neglected  to  sign  Statement  No.  1,  which  will  be  equiva- 
lent to  refusal  to  agree  to  abide  by  the  voter's  choice  of 
United  States  Senator,  the  voter  may  exercise  his  judg- 
ment in  sending  such  candidate  to  the  Legislature  to 
represent  him. 

Such  was  the  Direct  Primary  measure  upon  which 
the  Progressive  Legislature  was  called  to  act. . 

The  bill  met  with  no  opposition  in  the  Assembly.  It 
passed  that  body  by  a  vote  of  54  to  0. 

In  the  Senate,  however,  some  opposition  developed. 

Although  the  measure  had  passed  the  Assembly  on 
March  11,  it  did  not  come  to  vote  in  the  Senate  until 
March  23,  the  Thursday  before  adjournment.  When  the 
bill  did  come  up  for  final  passage,  Senator  Wright  pre- 
sented an  amendment. 

Wright's  amendment  provided  for  a  special  election 
to  be  held  in  April  of  presidential  years  for  the  purpose 
of  electing  delegates  to  a  State  convention,  to  elect  dele- 
gates to  the  National  convention  to  nominate  candidates 
for  President  and  Vice-President. 

In  the  matter  of  naming  the  delegates  to  the  national 


Amendment  of  the  Direct  Primary  Law   81 

convention,  the  1911  Direct  Primary  measure  follows  the 
1909  law.  The  1909  law  provides  that  the  delegates  to 
the  County  conventions  shall  be  the  same  delegates  who 
were  elected  at  the  last  preceding  primary.  Under  this 
arrangement,  the  delegates  to  the  County  conventions 
who  will  name  the  delegates  to  the  State  convention 
which  will  elect  delegates  to  the  National  conventions 
in  1912,  were  elected  at  the  1910  primaries. 

Such  was  the  provision  of  the  1909  measure. 

At  the  time  the  1909  Direct  Primary  bill  was  before 
the  Legislature,  the  machine  element  was  confident  in 
its  position  as  dominant  force  in  California  politics.  Its 
members  confidently  expected  to  carry  the  1910  primaries. 
Had  they  carried  the  primaries,  under  the  terms  of  the 
1909  Direct  Primary  law,  the  naming  of  delegates  to 
the  National  convention  would  have  been  in  the  hands 
of  the  old  organization. 

But  the  Progressives  carried  the  primaries.  There- 
fore, the  naming  of  the  delegates  to  the  National  con- 
vention is  in  the  hands,  not  of  the  machine,  as  the  ma- 
chine had  confidently  expected  would  be  the  case,  under 
the  terms  of  the  machine's  own  Direct  Primary  law,  but 
in  the  hands  of  the  Progressives. 

The  Progressives  did  not  amend  this  section  of  the 
law. 

Wright 107  attempted  to  do  so. 

Had  the  measure  become  a  law  with  the   Wright 

107  Senator  Wright  was  one  of  the  members  of  the  Free  Con- 
ference Committee  who  had  the  final  word  to  say  on  the  1909 
Direct  Primary  bill.  The  committee  could,  without  loss  of  time, 
have  amended  the  section  as  Wright,  just  before  adjournment  of 
the  1911  session,  demanded  that  it  be  amended.  Charles  R.  De- 
trick,  Secretary  of  the  Republican  State  Central  Committee,  states 
that  at  the  session  of  1909,  before  the  Direct  Primary  bill  was 
passed,  he  called  Senator  Wright's  attention  to  the  folly  of  pro- 


82    Amendment  of  the  Direct  Primary  Law 

amendment,  the  Progressives  would  have  been  forced  to 
fight  next  year  for  the  privilege,  which  they  already  have 
under  the  terms  of  the  machine's  own  section  in  the 
Direct  Primary  law,  of  naming  the  delegates  to  the  next 
National  Republican  Convention,  which  meets  in  1912. 

Senator  Wright,  in  the  debate  over  his  amendment 
which  followed,  made  the  startling  announcement  that  at 
the  session  of  1909,  it  had  not  been  intended  that  the 
section  in  the  form  it  was  adopted  should  be  left  in  the 
bill.108  But  Senator  Wright  failed  to  state  that  before 

viding  for  the  naming  of  delegates  to  the  National  convention  by 
county  conventions  elected  two  years  previous  to  the  date  of 
the  convention,  but  Senator  Wright  refused  to  change  the  section. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  also,  that  when  this  section  was  put 
into  the  1909  Direct  Primary  law,  not  a  word  of  censure  came 
from  the  reactionary  press,  nor,  was  there  any  protest  against  it 
until  the  Progressives,  contrary  to  machine  expectations,  carried 
the  1910  primaries,  thus  placing  the  selection  of  delegates  to  the 
1912  National  convention  in  Progressive  hands.  Then  came  pro- 
test. When  the  Legislature  adjourned  without  changing  the  law 
to  give  the  Reactionaries  another  chance  to  name  the  National 
delegates,  this  protest  grew  loud.  It  was  openly  charged  that  the 
law  had  been  "juggled"  in  the  interest  of  the  Presidential  am- 
bitions of  Senator  La  Follette.  The  San  Jose  Mercury,  of  which 
Congressman  E.  A.  Hayes  and  his  brother,  J.  O.  Hayes,  are  prac- 
tically sole  proprietors,  in  its  issue  of  April  1,  1911,  said  of  this 
feature  of  the  law:  "Whether  you  like  the  sort  of  legislation  he 
(Governor  Johnson)  has  given  us  or  not,  ...  or  worse  than 
all  the  juggling  of  the  Primary  law  to  accommodate  the  ambi- 
tions of  Senator  La  Follette — whether  you  like  or  dislike  these 
things — the  fact  remains  they  were  done  just  as  was  promised 
they  would  be  done  and  without  care  for  the  sentiment  of  anyone. 
Above  all,  you  will  admire  the  complaisance  with  which  the  Leg- 
islature "stood  up"  on  roll  call.  Every  man  of  them  was  a  per- 
former such  as  those  in  the  band  wagon  of  the  old  organization 
were  not  in  the  palmiest  days  of  machine  supremacy." 

But  the  Mercury  had  no  protest  to  make  when,  in  1909,  the 
section  complained  of  was  read  into  the  bill,  and  that  paper 
deliberately  misrepresented  when  it  charged  "juggling-"  with  this 
section  when  the  measure  was  before  the  1911  Legislature.  The 
"juggling"  with  the  Direct  Primary  law  complained  of  was  at 
the  session  of  1909.  In  the  section  under  discussion,  machine 
leaders  thought  they  had  a  trap  set  for  the  Progressives,  but 
the  machine  itself  fell  into  the  trap.  If  any  criticism  is  to  be 
made  of  the  neglect  of  the  Progressives  to  change  this  section  of 
the  law,  it  Is  that  they  failed  to  release  the  Reactionaries  from 
the  trap  of  Reactionary  setting. 

108  This  was  in  answer  to  Senator  Cutten's  demand  of  Wright 
why  the  section  was  good  in  1909,  and  not  good  in  1911. 


Amendment  of  the  Direct  Primary  Law    83 

the  measure  became  a  law  the  section  had  been  called  to 
his  attention,  and  the  effect  of  it  pointed  out.  Nor  did 
he  explain  how  the  provision  came  to  be  there  at  all; 
nor  why  he,  as  the  author  of  the  1909  bill,  had  permitted 
it  to  remain  there.  He  contended,  however,  that  those 
charged  with  naming  delegates  to  a  National  convention, 
should  not  be  elected  a  year  before  the  Presidential 
candidate  is  named. 

On  the  other  hand,  Senator  Stetson,  speaking  for  the 
Progressives,  pointed  out  that  the  Wright-Stanton  law 
provided  for  the  election  of  those  who  will  select  the 
National  delegates,  a  year  before  the  Presidential  elec- 
tion, and  they  had  actually  been  elected  under  the  terms 
of  that  law.  This  being  the  case,  Stetson  contended, 
Senator  Wright's  amendment  was  in  the  same  class  as 
legislation  which  was  intended  to  affect  pending  litiga- 
tion and  would  throw  at  once  into  uncertainty  matters 
pertaining  to  the  California  National  Convention  dele- 
gation. 

But  it  remained  for  Senator  Campbell  to  point  out 
the  real  danger  of  the  Wright  amendment. 

The  Legislature,  Campbell  pointed  out,  was  about  to 
adjourn.  If  Senator  Wright  succeeded  in  amending  the 
bill,  the  measure  would  be  sent  to  the  printer  for  re- 
printing, which  would  take  time.  Not  until  the  return 
of  the  re-printed  bill  could  the  Senate  pass  upon  it.  The 
measure  would  then  be  returned  to  the  Assembly  for 
concurrence  in  the  Senate  amendments.  Whether  there 
would  be  time  for  this  before  adjournment  was  a  ques- 
tion, even  though  the  Assembly  promptly  concurred. 
But  if  the  Assembly  failed  to  concur,  the  bill  would  be 


84    Amendment  of  the  Direct  Primary  Law 

as  good  as  dead  for  there  was  no  time  for  extended 
wrangle  in  conference  committees  over  the  measure.  If 
the  passage  of  the  bill  were  prevented,  the  unsatisfactory 
provision  of  the  Wright-Stanton  Direct  Primary  law 
would  continue  in  effect  for  another  two  years. 

But  five  Senators  109  voted  for  the  Wright  amendment. 
Two  of  the  five,  Wright  and  Wolfe,  had  served  on  the 
Free  Conference  Committee  which,  two  years  before,  had 
the  final  word  in  deciding  the  provisions  which  the 
Wright-Stanton  Direct  Primary  law  should  contain. 

The  measure  as  it  had  come  from  the  Assembly  was 
then  passed,  not  an  adverse  vote  being  recorded  against  it. 

109  The  vote  on  the  Wright  amendment  was  as  follows: 
For  the  Amendment — Cassidy,  Curtin,  Hurd,  Wolfe  and  Wright 
— 5. 

Against  the  Amendment — Beban,  Bell,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boynton, 
Bryant,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cutten,  Gates,  Hare, 
Holohan,  Juilliard,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Roseberry, 
Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Stetson,  Thompson,  Tyrrell  and  Walker 
—26. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
RESTORATION  OF  THE  AUSTRALIAN  BALLOT. 

Both  the  "Party  Circle"  and  the  "Party  Column"  Which 
Had  Given  the  Organised  Machine  Exceptional  Ad- 
vantage at  Elections  Over  the  Unorganised  Citi- 
zenry were  Abolished  Without  a  Dissenting  Vote  in 
Either  Senate  or  Assembly. 

The  corruption  of  the  Australian  ballot  was  one  of 
the  most  characteristic  acts  of  the  Southern  Pacific  ma- 
chine; the  restoration  of  the  Australian  ballot  at  the  1911 
session  of  the  Legislature,  one  of  the  most  characteristic 
accomplishments  of  the  Progressive  movement.110 

The  adoption  of  the  Australian  ballot  in  California 
was  forced  upon  the  old  Southern  Pacific  organization 
during  the  early  nineties,  after  the  ineffectiveness  of  the 
old-time  ballot  had  been  demonstrated  at  many  elections. 
Hon.  James  G.  Maguire,110*  then  Congressman  from  a 

no  Regarding  the  restoration  of  the  Australian  ballot,  Governor 
Johnson  said  in  his  inaugural  address: 

"All  of  the  parties  in  the  State  of  California  are  committed 
to  the  policy  of  restoring  the  Australian  ballot  to  its  original  form, 
and,  therefore,  I  merely  call  to  your  attention  that  restoration  Is 
one  of  the  duties  that  devolves  upon  us  because  of  party  pledges." 

noa  Judge  Maguire  may  be  called  the  father  of  the  Australian 
ballot  in  California,  for  he  brought  the  idea  here.  Maguire's  at- 
tention was  called  to  the  Australian  election  plan  when  on  a 
visit  to  New  York  in  1889,  by  Allen  Thorndyke  Rice,  at  that  time 
publisher  of  the  North  American  Review.  Rice  was  an  enthusias- 
tic advocate  of  the  reform,  and  was  supporting  it  in  his  Review. 
He  supplied  Maguire,  who  had  already  given  the  subject  some  at- 
tention, with  literature  on  the  subject. 

On  Maguire's  return  to  San  Francisco,  he  delivered  a  lecture 
on  the  Australian  ballot  at  the  old  Metropolitan  Temple.  The  Fed- 


86       Restoration  of  the  Australian  Ballot 

San  Francisco  district  and  at  the  time  a  power  in  Califor- 
nia politics,  was  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  reform-of-the- 
election-laws  movement;  as  were  Franklin  K.  Lane,  now 
Interstate  Commerce  Commissioner,  James  H.  Barry  of 
the  San  Francisco  Star,  and  the  late  Arthur  McEwen, 
the  most  independent  newspaper  writer  who  ever  com- 
bated the  "Associated  Villainies,"  as  McEwen  dubbed 
the  affiliated  corporations  whose  political  agents  consti- 
tuted the  leaders  of  the  California  machine  organization. 

The  original  draft  of  the  first  Australian  ballot  meas- 
ure to  become  a  law  in  California,  was  taken  to  Sacra- 
mento in  the  early  nineties  by  a  committee  of  100  citi- 
zens with  Maguire  at  their  head. 

The  proposed  measure  was  without  "party  circle,"  or 
"party  column,"  or  other  device  to  give  the  organized 
machine  advantage  over  the  unorganized  citizenry.  The 
names  of  the  candidates  for  the  several  offices,  were,  un- 
der the  terms  of  the  bill,  grouped  under  the  name  of  the 
office  to  which  they  aspired,  the  name  of  the  party  to 
which  each  candidate  owed  his  nomination  following  the 
candidate's  name.  The  voter  was  thus  called  upon  to 
choose  between  candidates,  as  well  as  to  choose  between 
parties. 

But  before  the  measure  could  become  a  law,  it  was 
amended  by  adding  at  the  top  of  each  ballot,  a  circle  for 

crated  Trades  Council  of  San  Francisco  became  interested,  and  at 
request  of  its  representatives,  Maguire  drew  the  first  Australian 
ballot  measure  ever  prepared-  in  California.  During  the  1890  cam- 
paign candidates  for  the  Legislature  were  pledged  to  support  such 
a  measure.  The  passage  of  California's  first  Australian  ballot 
law,  largely  through  the  effort  of  the  Federated  Trades  Council, 
followed. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  particular  that  the  California 
State  Federation  of  Labor  included  restoration  of  the  Australian 
ballot  and  simplification  of  the  Direct  Primary  law,  among  "Labor 
measures,"  and  instructed  the  representatives  of  Labor  at  Sacra- 
mento to  support  the  passage  of  bills  advocating  these  reforms. 


Restoration  of  the  Australian  Ballot       87 

each  party  that  had  named  candidates.  Each  circle  was 
marked  with  the  name  of  a  party.  A  cross  stamped  in 
one  of  these  circles  was  equivalent  to  a  vote  for  every 
candidate  on  the  ticket  who  had  a  nomination  from  the 
party  which  the  stamped  circle  represented. 

The  "party-circle,"  as  the  device  was  called,  gave  the 
party  candidate  advantage  over  the  candidate  running 
as  an  independent  without  party  nomination,  and  tended 
to  encourage  the  indifferent  or  lazy  voter  to  choose  be- 
tween parties  rather  than  between  men.  Nevertheless, 
comparative  little  use  was  made  of  the  "party  circle" 
until  the  further  corruption  of  the  ballot  by  the  intro- 
duction of  the  "party  column." 

Under  the  "party-column"  amendment  to  the  orig- 
inal law,  the  names  of  candidates,  instead  of  being 
grouped  under  the  name  of  the  office  to  which  they  as- 
pired, were  grouped  under  the  name  of  the  party  to 
which  they  owed  nomination.  The  average  voter,  wish- 
ing to  vote  for  the  head  of  his  party  ticket,  under  the 
new  arrangement,  found  it  convenient  to  follow  down 
the  column  in  voting  for  candidates  for  other  offices, 
rather  than  to  go  over  into  the  columns  of  other  parties 
to  hunt  for  candidates  who,  for  minor  offices,  the  voter 
might  deem  better  qualified  than  the  candidates  of  his 
own  party.  The  "party  circle"  was,  too,  given  a  promi- 
nence which  it  had  not  had  on  the  ballot  provided  in  the 
original  law. 

Still  another  step — and  a  most  important  one — was 
taken  to  direct  the  voter  to  the  "party  circle."  Under 
the  law,  a  "distinguishing  mark"  invalidated  the  ballot. 
Under  court  rulings  on  this  point,  the  most  trivial  mark 


88       Restoration  of  the  Australian  Ballot 

became  a  distinguishing  mark — a  cross  mis-stamped,  a 
blot,  a  double  mark,  all  were  held  to  be  "distinguishing 
marks"  which  invalidated  the  ballot.111 

Soon  the  idea  that  to  be  sure  of  one's  vote  it  was 
safer  to  use  the  "party  circle,"  than  to  run  the  risk  of 
invalidating  one's  ballot  by  voting  for  individual  candi- 
dates, became  popular.  And,  finally,  when  the  voting 
machine  was  introduced,  a  curious  rivalry  was  encour- 
aged to  establish  records  for  quick  voting.  The  voter, 
wishing  to  make  a  "record,"  would  rush  into  the  booth, 
press  down  the  party  lever,  and  rush  out  again — having 
voted. 

Under  these  conditions,  which  had  developed  during 
the  slow  course  of  tinkering  with  the  Australian  ballot 
law,  the  machine,  in  control  of  nominating  conventions, 
had  only  to  name  a  popular  man  at  the  head  of  the  ticket, 
and  it  could  be  practically  sure  of  electing  to  the  minor 
offices  candidates  who  would  not  have  been  the  personal 
choice  of  the  electors.112 

This  was  particularly  true  of  candidates  for  the  judi- 

111  Curiously  enough  the  most  effective  and  most  readily  used 
"distinguishing  mark"  was  permitted  under  the  law.     The  theory 
of  the  objection  to  the  "distinguishing  mark"  was  to  prevent  the 
marking   of  a   ballot   so   as   to   furnish   proof   to   a   second   person 
that  the  elector  had  cast  his  ballot  In  a  given  way.     But  the  law 
provided   that  the  voter   could  write   in   the  name   of  any   person 
for  any  office  he  chose.     Thus  A,   wising  to   show  B  that  he  had 
voted  in   a  given  way,   need  only  to  state  In  advance  to   B   that 
he   would    write    In    the    name    of   Richard    Roe    for   constable.     B 
would   not   only   be    furnished   with   a   mark   that  would    convince 
him  that  A  had  voted  as  agreed,   but  the  mark  would  be  in  A's 
own  handwriting.     This  was  permitted  under  the  law,   but  a  bal- 
lot, folded  before  the  crosses  stamped  by  the  voter  were  dry,   so 
as   to   leave   the  impression   of  a  cross   out  of  place,   would   have 
been  thrown  out  on  the  ground  that  It  contained  a  distinguishing 
mark. 

112  This    was    well    Illustrated    at    the    Presidential    election    of 
1904.     So   popular  was   Roosevelt  in    California,    that   the   Republi- 
can   Presidential    electors    received   no    less    than    205,22(5   votes    as 
against   89,294  for   the   Democratic   electors.     The  People  were  for 
Roosevelt,    because    of    the    so-called    "Roosevelt    policies."    The 


Restoration  of  the  Australian  Ballot       89 

ciary.  The  general  public,  after  the  excitement  of  a 
political  campaign  had  passed,  too  often  discovered,  with 
regret,  that  a  Judge  who  had  served  on  the  bench  with 
ability  and  distinction,  and  whom  all  supposed  would  be 
re-elected  as  a  matter  of  course,  had  been  retired,  be- 
cause of  his  affiliation  with  the  minority  party. 

Although  attempts  were  made  from  time  to  time  to 
restore  the  Australian  ballot  to  its  original  simplicity  and 
effectiveness,  it  was  not  until  the  legislative  session  of 
1909  that  the  movement  for  ballot  reform  made  much 
headway.  At  the  1909  session,  however,  three  ballot  re- 
form measures  were  considered. 

The  first  of  these  was  introduced  by  Assemblyman 
C.  C.  Young  of  Berkeley  and  provided  for  the  abolition 
of  both  the  "party  circle"  and  the  "party  column."  The 
second  was  introduced  by  Senator  Holohan,  and  did 
away  with  the  "party  circle"  only.118 

The  third  bill  had  been  prepared  by  Mr.  William 
Denman  of  San  Francisco.  This  measure  provided  that 

machine  saw  what  was  coming,  and  the  Republican  candidates 
for  Congress  in  this  State  that  year  were  in  the  main  men  who 
did  not  hold  the  Roosevelt  theories  of  government  at  all.  The 
same  was  true  of  the  Republican  candidates  for  the  Legislature. 
The  Legislature  elected  on  the  Roosevelt  ticket  was  one  of  the 
most  subservient  and  corrupt  that  ever  sat  in  California.  This 
Legislature  elected  to  the  United  States  Senate  a  representative 
"organization"  politician,  a  man  quite  out  of  sympathy  with  the 
Roosevelt  view  of  things.  Thus,  under  the  "party  circle"  scheme 
of  voting,  the  popularity  of  the  Roosevelt  policies  which  gave 
Roosevelt  his  large  California  vote,  at  the  same  time  carried  the 
election  of  representatives  in  Congress  who  were  well  calculated 
to  act  as  a  block  in  the  way  of  realization  of  those  policies. 
Roosevelt  and  a  square  deal,  was  the  rallying  cry  in  California 
that  year.  Roosevelt  carried  the  State,  and  at  the  same  time 
pulled  into  office  legislators  who  were  for  anything  but  square 
deal  policies. 

us  "The  proposition  for  the  abolition  of  the  party  circle,"  said 
Phil  A.  Stanton  in  his  pamphlet,  "A  Personal  Statement  to  the 
Voters  of  California,"  "was  strictly  a  Democratic  measure."  Mr. 
Stanton  was  at  the  time  a  candidate  for  the  Republican  nomina- 
tion for  Governor.  Out  of  over  200,000  votes  cast  at  the  Repub- 
lican primaries,  Mr.  Stanton  received  18,226. 


90       Restoration  of  the  Australian  Ballot 

candidates  for  judicial  office  should  have  their  names 
printed  in  a  separate  column  on  the  election  ballot,  and 
without  party  designation.114  This  measure  was  intro- 
duced in  the  Upper  House  by  Senator  Boynton. 

Both  the  Holohan  bill  and  the  Boynton  bill  passed  the 
Senate.  After  the  passage  of  the  Holohan  bill  in  the 
Upper  House,  the  Young  bill  was  not  pressed  in  the  As- 
sembly, on  the  theory  that  half  a  loaf  is  better  than  no 
bread,  and  that  it  was  better  to  compromise  to  secure 
the  certain  abolishment  of  the  "party  circle,"  than  to  risk 
getting  nothing  by  insisting  upon  abolishing  the  "party 
column." 

The  machine,  as  soon  as  the  Young  bill  was  out  of 
the  way,  turned  upon  the  Holohan  bill  in  the  Assembly 
and  by  a  vote  of  36  to  35  denied  the  measure's  second 
reading. 

On  similar  narrow  margin  the  Boynton  non-Partisan 
Judiciary  bill  met  with  defeat  in  the  Assembly,  35  mem- 
bers voting  for  the  measure  and  29  against,  41  votes 
being  required  for  its  passage  in  the  Lower  House. 

Thus,  the  1909  Legislature,  after  action  in  the  Sen- 
ate, did  nothing  toward  the  restoration  of  the  Australian 

ii*  "I  voted  against  the  non-partisan  judicial  column  bill," 
said  Phil  A.  Stanton,  Speaker  of  the  1909  Assembly,  "because  the 
measure  proposed  was  of  a  mongrel  nature,  misleading  and  utterly 
inadequate  for  the  purpose  sought  to  be  accomplished." 

It  is  interesting  to  note,  however,  that  in  spite  of  Mr.  Stanton's 
adverse  comment,  the  1909  Judicial  Column  bill  was  endorsed  by 
the  San  Francisco  Bar  Association;  by  Judge  Gilbert,  presiding 
Judge  of  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals;  by  United 
States  Circuit  Judge  William  H.  Morrow;  by  United  States  District 
Judge  De  Haven;  by  Chief  Justice  Beatty  of  the  California  Su- 
preme Court,  and  by  more  than  sixty  other  judicial  officers  of 
California.  The  measure  also  had  the  commendation  and  en- 
dorsement of  the  Chief  Justices  of  Pennsylvania,  Massachusetts, 
Minnesota,  Rhode  Island.  Illinois,  Oregon,  Wyoming,  Mississippi, 
Arizona,  Nevada  and  Montana,  to  whom  it  had  been  submitted 
before  it  was  introduced  in  the  California  Legislature. 


Restoration  of  the  Australian  Ballot       91 

ballot  to  its  original  simplicity  and  effectiveness,  or  to 
take  the  judiciary  out  of  politics. 

The  Democratic  party  in  its  platform  adopted  the 
following  year  declared  for  a  non-partisan  judiciary  and 
for  the  removal  of  the  party  circle  from  the  ballot. 

The  Republican  party  platform  went  further  and  was 
more  specific.  It  declared  for  "the  restoration  of  the 
true  Australian  ballot  as  originally  adopted  in  California, 
without  'party  circle'  or  'party  column/  and  for  placing 
of  the  names  of  judicial  candidates  on  the  election  ballot 
without  party  designation." 

The  work  of  drawing  a  bill  along  the  lines  pledged 
in  the  Republican  platform  and  partially  pledged  in  the 
Democratic,  fell  largely  to  Assemblyman  C.  C.  Young 
of  Berkeley,  who  had  introduced  the  Young  bill  at  the 
1909  session,  and  to  Senator  A.  E.  Boynton  of  Butte,  who 
had  introduced  the  Judicial  Column  bill  at  that  session. 

The  bill  prepared  by  these  gentlemen  abolished  the 
"party  circle"  and  the  "party  column"  as  had  been  at- 
tempted in  the  Young  bill  two  years  before.  This  left 
the  names  of  candidates  to  be  grouped  on  the  election 
ballot  under  the  name  of  the  office  to  which  they  aspired, 
as  had  been  provided  by  the  original  Australian  ballot 
law  introduced  in  the  Legislature  at  the  behest  of  Judge 
Maguire  and  his  associates  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century 
before. 

The  Young-Boynton  measure  also  provided  that  the 
names  of  candidates  for  judicial  office  shall  appear  on  the 
ballot  without  party  designation,  which  was  essentially 
the  feature  of  the  Boynton  bill  of  1909.  The  measure 
further  provided  for  a  place  on  the  ballot  for  the  names 


92       Restoration  of  the  Australian  Ballot 

of  the  nominees  of  the  several  parties  for  the  United 
States  Senate,  that  the  provisions  of  the  Oregon  plan 
for  nominating  United  States  Senators  might  be  carried 
out. 

Not  a  vote  was  cast  against  the  measure  in  either 
House.  The  restoration  of  the  Australian  ballot,  and 
the  lifting  of  the  judiciary  out  of  politics,  which  even  at 
the  1909  session  the  machine  had  successfully  resisted, 
was  thus  accomplished  without  opposition,  both  parties 
rallying  to  the  support  of  the  reform. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM  AMENDMENT. 

Endorsed  in  the  Democratic  and  Republican  Platforms, 
and  Strongly  Urged  by  Governor  Johnson  in  His 
Inaugural  Address,  the  Amendment  Was  Adopted  by 
a  Total  Vote  in  the  Two  Houses  #f 106  to  i.  J) 

Governor  Johnson  in  his  inaugural  address  pointed 
out  that  after  California's  government  shall  be  composed 
of  only  those  who  represent  one  sovereign  and  master, 
The  People,  The  People  can  best  be  armed  to  protect 
themselves  hereafter,  by  the  taking  unto  themselves  the 
powers  contained  in  the  "Initiative,"  the  "Referendum" 
and  the  "Recall."  115 

In  this  Governor  Johnson  was  thoroughly  in  accord 

115  "When,  with  your  assistance,"  said  Governor  Johnson,  "Cal- 
ifornia's government  shall  be  composed  only  of  those  who  recog- 
nize one  sovereign  and  master,  The  People,  then  is  presented  to 
us  the  question  of,  How  best  can  we  arm  The  People  to  protect 
themselves  hereafter?  If  we  can  give  to  The  People  the  means 
by  which  they  may  accomplish  such  other  reforms  as  they  desire, 
the  means  as  well  by  which  they  may  prevent  the  misuse  of  the 
power  temporarily  centralized  in  the  Legislature  and  an  admoni- 
tory and  precautionary  measure  which  will  ever  be  present  be- 
fore weak  officials,  and  the  existence  of  which  will  prevent  the 
necessity  for  its  use,  then  all  that  lies  in  our  power  will  have 
been  done  in  the  direction  of  safeguarding  the  future  and  for 
the  perpetuation  of  the  theory  upon  which  we  ourselves  shall 
conduct  this  government.  This  means  for  accomplishing  other 
reforms  has  been  designated  the  'Initiative  and  the  Referendum,' 
and  the  precautionary  measure  by  which  a  recalcitrant  official  can 
be  removed  is  designated  the  'Recall.'  And  while  I  do  not  by 
any  means  believe  the  Initiative,  the  Referendum,  and  the  Recall 
are  the  panacea  for  all  our  political  ills,  yet  they  do  give  to  the 
electorate  the  power  of  action  when  desired,  and  they  do  place 
in  the  hands  of  The  People  the  means  by  which  they  may  protect 
themselves.  I  recommend  to  you,  therefore,  and  I  most  strongly 
urge,  that  the  first  step  in  our  design  to  preserve  and  perpetuate 
popular  government  shall  be  the  adoption  of  the  Initiative,  the 
Referendum,  and  the  Recall." 


94    Initiative  and  Referendum  Amendment 

with  the  platforms  of  both  the  Democratic  and  the  Re- 
publican parties.116  But  The  People  of  California  had 
learned  from  experience  that  in  a  reform  so  important 
as  the  "Initiative,"  party  platforms  do  not  necessarily 
bind  those  who  have  been  elected  through  party  nomina- 
tions.117 And,  too,  the  opposition  of  the  Republican  or- 
ganization, as  well  as  of  Democratic  Senators  at  the  ses- 
sion of  1909  had  not  been  forgotten.118 

At  the  1909  session,  the  Progressives  had  not  had  the 
confidence  to  ask  for  the  Referendum.  They  had  asked 
for  the  Initiative  only,  and  then  made  a  further  com- 
promise by  increasing  the  percentage  of  signatures  of 
voters  necessary  to  get  a  law  before  The  People  from 
8  to  12  per  cent. 

The  machine  then  defeated  the  amendment  in  the 
Senate  by  a  vote  of  20  for  it  to  15  against,  27  votes  being 
necessary  to  submit  it  to  The  People.  In  the  Assembly 

us  The  Democrats  set  forth  in  their  State  platform  (1910), 
"We  stand  for  the  Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall." 

The  Republican  platform  recommended  to  the  Legislature  and 
the  Governor  "the  submission  to  The  People  of  Constitutional 
amendments,  providing  for  direct  legislation  in  the  State  and  in 
the  County  and  local  governments,  through  the  Initiative,  Refer- 
endum and  Recall." 

in  At  the  Legislative  session  of  1909,  for  example,  Senator 
Eddie  Wolfe,  who  had  had  Labor  Union  party  nomination,  and  who 
owed  his  election  in  no  small  degree  to  votes  of  union  labor  men, 
led  the  fight  in  the  Senate  against  the  Initiative.  Senator  Hart- 
man,  another  Union  Labor  Senator,  voted  against  the  amend- 
ment. Senator  Finn,  also  with  a  Union  Labor  nomination,  waa 
not  on  hand  to  vote  when  the  1909  amendment  was  considered. 
The  Democrats  through  their  party  platform  had  declared  for 
the  Initiative,  but  when  the  measure  came  to  a  vote  in  the  Sen- 
ate, two  prominent  Democratic  Senators,  Miller  and  Curtin,  voted 
against  it.  Curtin  called  the  Initiative  a  "gold  brick."  Miller  an- 
nounced that  his  conscience  would  not  permit  him  to  vote  for 
such  a  measure. 

us  When  the  Initiative  was  before  the  Senate  in  1909,  Senator 
Willis  of  San  Bernardino  denounced  it  as  revolutionary  and  un- 
American.  "After  this,"  cried  Willis,  "will  come  the  Referendum 
and  the  Recall,  and  then  God  knows  what." 


Initiative  and  Referendum  Amendment    95 

the  measure  failed  to  get  beyond  the  committee  to  which 
it  had  been  referred. 

So,  somewhat  discouraged,  promoters  of  the  direct 
legislation  principle,  seriously  thought  at  one  time  of 
asking  for  an  amendment  providing  for  the  initiation  of 
amendments  to  the  Constitution  only.  But  with  the  elec- 
tion of  Johnson,  and  the  general  defeat  at  the  elections 
of  those  members  of  former  Legislatures  who  had  op- 
posed the  Initiative,  all  thought  of  compromise  was  for- 
gotten, and  a  stand  was  taken  not  only  for  the  "Initia- 
tive" and  the  "Referendum,"  but  for  the  "Recall"  also. 

Following  out  the  provisions  of  the  Republican  State 
platform,  Chairman  Meyer  Lissner  appointed  a  commit- 
tee with  Senator  Lee  Gates  as  chairman,  to  draft  an  Ini- 
tiative and  Referendum  amendment,  and  a  Recall  amend- 
ment, to  be  submitted  to  the  consideration  of  the  Legis- 
lature. The  Initiative  and  Referendum  amendment 
adopted  at  the  1911  session  was  the  direct  result  of  the 
work  of  this  committee,  although  the  measure  was  modi- 
fied in  many  respects  after  the  Legislature  convened,  and 
before  the  measure  was  introduced  in  either  House.  The 
changes  were  made,  in  the  main,  at  the  suggestion  of 
Senator  Lee  Gates  of  Los  Angeles,  Assemblyman  William 
C.  Clark  of  Alameda,  and  Mr.  Milton  T.  U'Ren,  secre- 
tary of  the  Direct  Legislation  League  of  California.119 

The  Initiative  and  Referendum  amendment  consid- 


119  The  amendment  as  finally  adopted  reserves  Initiative  and 
Referendum  powers  to  The  People  and  provides  the  necessary 
machinery  for  using  these  powers  so  that  the  ratification  of  the 
amendment  by  The  People  will  render  the  measure  self -executing 
without  the  necessity  of  further  action  by  the  Legislature. 

The  measure  provides  that  either  a  statutory  law  or  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  shall  be  presented  to  The  People  for 
their  adoption  or  rejection  by  a  petition  signed  by  qualified  elec- 


96    Initiative  and  Referendum  Amendment 

ered  at  the  1911  session  was  introduced  in  the  Lower 
House  by  Assemblyman  William  C.  Clark  of  Oakland, 
and  in  the  upper  by  Senator  Lee  Gates  of  Los  Angeles. 
The  measure  was  not  ready  for  introduction,  however, 
until  January  20. 

The  old-time  machine  element  appears  to  have  recog- 
nized that  both  Houses  were  prepared  to  adopt  the 
amendment.  At  any  rate,  no  open  campaign  was  car- 
ried on  against  it,  and  little  or  no  adverse  lobbying. 

But,  acting  on  the  theory  that  a  measure  cannot  be 
adopted  until  voted  upon,  the  machine  element  was  quite 
willing  to  let  action  on  the  amendment  be  deferred  from 

tors  equal  in  number  to  8  per  cent,  of  all  the  votes  cast  for  all 
candidates  for  Governor  at  the  last  preceding  general  election. 

The  measure  further  provides  that  a  petition  signed  by  5  per 
cent,  of  the  qualified  electors,  reckoned  as  before,  and  presented  to 
the  Secretary  of  State  at  least  ten  days  before  the  commencement 
of  a  regular  session  of  the  Legislature,  and  proposing  a  statutory 
law,  as  set  forth  in  the  petition,  shall  require  the  proposed  law 
to  be  transmitted  to  the  Legislature.  If  said  proposed  law  is 
refused  passage  by  the  Legislature,  or  if  no  action  is  taken  upon 
it  within  forty  days  from  its  receipt,  then  the  proposed  law  shall 
be  submitted  to  The  People  at  the  next  ensuing  general  election. 
If  such  law  be  not  passed  by  the  Legislature  that  Legislature 
may  propose  a  different  measure  on  the  same  subject,  both  of 
which  measures  shall  be  presented  to  The  People  to  be  voted  on 
at  the  same  election. 

The  Referendum  right  is  made  applicable  to  all  acts  of  the 
Legislature  within  ninety  days  after  final  adjournment,  except  as 
to  acts  calling  elections  and  those  providing  for  tax  levies  and 
usual  expenses  of  the  State,  and  urgency  measures  necessary  for 
the  immediate  preservation  of  the  public  peace,  health,  or  safety, 
which  latter  must  be  passed  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  all  the  mem- 
bers elected  to  each  house.  Further,  a  statement  of  the  facts 
constituting  such  necessity  shall  be  set  forth  in  one  section  of  the 
act,  and  this  section  shall  be  passed  only  upon  a  separate  yea  and 
nay  vote,  thus  showing  at  once  to  The  People  what  facts  the 
Legislature  considered  as  constituting  an  urgency. 

Further,  it  is  provided  that  no  act  granting  any  franchise  or 
special  privilege,  or  creating  a  vested  right  or  interest  shall  be 
construed  an  urgency  measure.  To  submit  a  measure  to  a  Ref- 
erendary vote  requires  a  5  per  cent,  petition,  reckoned  in  the 
same  way  as  for  the  Initiative.  No  Initiative  measure  is  subject 
to  the  Governor's  veto,  nor,  if  once  adopted,  can  it  be  amended  or 
repealed  unless  the  measure  itself  so  provides,  without  the  action 
of  The  People.  In  the  case  of  conflict  between  measures  ap- 
proved by  the  electors  at  the  same  election,  that  receiving  the 
highest  affirmative  vote  shall  prevail. 


Initiative  and  Referendum  Amendment    97 

time  to  time,  in  anticipation,  no  doubt,  of  some  unfore- 
seen event  which  might  result  in  failure  of  any  action 
on  the  measure.  Once  adopted,  the  amendment  would  be 
submitted  to  The  People.  But  until  adopted  there  was 
the  chance  that  it  might  not  be  given  favorable  considera- 
tion at  all. 

The  Senate  acted  on  the  amendment  before  the  As- 
sembly. 

When  on  February  8,  the  measure  finally  came  before 
the  Upper  House  for  adoption,  after  having  been  amend- 
ed in  committee  and  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  several 
Senators  demanded  further  amendment,  which  meant 
more  delay. 

Strangely  enough,  the  most  persistent  opponent  of 
immediate  action  was  Senator  Caminetti,  who  has  all  his 
life  been  an  earnest  advocate  of  the  principle  of  both  the 
Initiative  and  of  the  Referendum. 

Senator  Leroy  A.  Wright  of  San  Diego,  the  only 
member  of  either  house  who,  on  final  vote,  went  on  rec- 
ord against  the  amendment,  joined  with  Caminetti  in 
demanding  that  the  measure  be  amended.  So  quickly 
were  the  objections  to  the  measure  made,  and  so  well 
were  they  advocated,  that  the  whole  Senate  became  in- 
volved in  a  debate  which  lasted  three  hours. 

Senator  Boynton  finally  brought  the  Senate  to  realiza- 
tion of  the  folly  of  the  dispute  by  pointing  out  that  the 
amendment  had  been  given  thorough  consideration  by 
the  Judiciary  Committee,  had  already  been  considered 
and  amended  by  the  Senate,  and  had  been  on  the  Senate 
files  for  several  days.  The  time  had  come,  Boynton  in- 
sisted, for  final  action.  The  majority  of  the  Senate  was 
clearly  in  accord  with  him.  But  when  Boynton  had  con- 


98    Initiative  and  Referendum  Amendment 

eluded,  Senator  Gates,  who  had  charge  of  the  measure, 
to  the  astonishment  of  the  Progressives,  announced  that 
he  was  willing  that  consideration  of  the  amendment 
should  go  over  until  another  day.120 

Senator  Wright  had  won  a  point.  The  legislative 
day  of  February  8  closed  without  the  Senate  having 
adopted  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  amendment.  Had 
the  Senate  been  more  evenly  divided  between  Reaction- 
aries and  Progressives,  this  delay  might  have  resulted  in 
the  defeat  of  the  measure. 

When  the  measure  came  up  the  following  day,  Cam- 
inetti  presented  his  amendments.  They  were  two  in 
number. 

The  Initiative  measure  provided  that  the  petition  to 
initiate  a  law  shall  be  signed  "by  qualified  electors,  equal 
in  number  to  eight  per  cent,  of  all  votes  cast  for  all  can- 
didates for  Governor  at  the  last  preceding  general  elec- 
tion." Caminetti's  first  amendment  made  this  provision 
read  "by  at  least  one  per  centum  of  the  qualified  electors, 
equal  in  number  to  eight  per  cent.,  etc."  The  words  in 
italics  show  the  addition  which  Caminetti  wished  to  make 
to  the  measure.  Had  the  Caminetti  amendment  been 
adopted,  the  Senate  could  not  have  acted  upon  the  meas- 
ure until  it  had  been  re-printed.  This  would  have  neces- 
sitated further  delay. 

Caminetti's  proposed  amendment  was  defeated  by  a 
vote  of  8  to  24.121 

120  Senator   Gates    admitted   later   In   the   day   that   In   yielding 
to  those  who  were  clamoring  for  delay  he  had  made  a  mistake. 

121  The  vote  on  Caminetti's  first  amendment  was: 

For  Caminetti's  amendment — Senators  Beban,  Caminetti,  Estu- 
dlllo,  Hare,  Jullliard,  Martinelll,  Sanford  and  Wright — 8. 

Against  Caminetti's  amendment — Senators  Avey,  Bell,  Bills, 
Birdsall,  Black,  Boynton,  Bryant,  Burnett,  Cassidy,  Cutten,  Gates, 


Initiative  and  Referendum  Amendment    99 

But  this  did  not  deter  Caminetti  from  offering  a  sec- 
ond amendment.  The  second  amendment  provided  that 
an  Initiative  petition  must  be  signed  in  at  least  ten  coun- 
ties of  the  State. 

Caminetti  in  speaking  to  the  question  of  his  amend- 
ment insisted  that  centers  of  population  should  not  be 
given  monopoly  in  initiating  legislation,  which  he  stated 
was  possible  under  the  Clark-Gates  measure. 

Senator  Gates  replied  that  in  his  opinion  if  32,000 
voters  of  San  Francisco,  for  example,  or  of  any  other 
center  of  population,  believed  their  rights  had  been  in- 
truded upon,  they  should  be  permitted  to  ask  for  redress 
of  their  grievances,  regardless  of  the  fact  that  they  lived 
in  one  section  of  the  State. 

Senator  Boynton  suggested  that  if  there  was  sufficient 
sentiment  in  one  section  to  seek  to  use  the  powers  of  the 
Initiative  and  Referendum,  it  would  be  no  hard  task  to 
secure  sufficient  backing  of  the  other  counties.  So  that 
even  if  the  Caminetti  amendments  were  adopted,  no 
more  restrictions  would  be  imposed  upon  the  majority,  in 
favor  of  the  minority,  than  under  the  original  draft  of 
the  measure. 

Caminetti's  second  proposed  change  was  voted  down 
as  had  been  the  first.122 

Hans,  Hewitt,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Regan,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Shanahan, 
Stetson,   Thompson,    Tyrrell,   Walker  and  "Welch — 24. 

The  ayes  and  noes  on  Caminetti's  second  amendment  were  not 
demanded  and  no  record  was  made  of  the  vote. 

122  Senator  Caminetti  had  the  following  explanation  of  his  atti- 
tude on  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  amendment  printed  in  the 
Senate  Journal: 

"While  in  favor  of  the  principles  underlying  Senate  Constitu- 
tional Amendment  No.  22,  I  believe  that  the  power  to  put  into 
motion  the  authority  reserved  to  The  People  therein  should  not  be 
placed  in  the  power  entirely  of  large  populous  cities  or  counties 
containing  in  their  respective  confine  population  sufficient  to  ae- 


ioo  Initiative  and  Referendum  Amendment 

The  amendment  was  then  adopted  by  a  vote  of  35 
to  I.123 

When  the  Initiative  amendment  came  up  for  adoption 
in  the  Assembly,  Assemblyman  Polsley  offered  amend- 
ments increasing  the  percentage  of  signers  of  petitions 
to  initiate  laws  from  8  to  15  per  cent.,  and  the  percentage 
of  signers  to  refer  a  law  to  the  referendum  of  The  Peo- 
ple from  5  to  10  per  cent.  The  effect  of  the  adoption  of 
these  amendments  would  have  been  to  render  it  difficult 
if  not  impossible  to  invoke  either  the  Initiative  or  the 
Referendum.  The  fight  for  the  changes  proposed  by 
Mr.  Polsley  lacked  spirit,  however,  and  his  proposed 

cure  the  required  percentage  of  signers  to  petitions  that  may  be 
filed  under  Its  provisions.  The  fathers  jealously  guarded  against 
centralization  of  power  of  The  People  as  well  as  of  the  State,  in 
providing  against  the  possibility  of  populous  States  controlling 
the  elections  for  President  and  the  deliberations  of  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States.  When  it  is  remembered  that  this  authority 
extends  to  amendments  of  our  Constitution,  as  well  as  to  our  laws, 
and  that  in  reference  to  the  latter  the  veto  is  inhibited,  we  should 
pause  before  giving  large  cities  and  counties  this  extensive  power. 
It  is  no  answer  that  In  the  present  state  of  public  opinion  there 
Is  no  danger  to  the  general  welfare.  We  should  provide,  In  all 
proposals  to  amend  the  Constitution  and  in  laws,  for  'all  con- 
tingencies and  guard  the  probabilities  that  sometimes  may  become 
possibilities,  and  thus  cause  detriment  of  The  People. 

"We  follow  the  rule  set  forth  in  my  amendments  In  nominat- 
ing petitions  for  Governor  and  other  State  officers,  and  In  like 
manner,  but  with  reduced  percentages  for  other  State  officers — 
the  reason  for  the  rule  in  those  cases  being  the  same  that  sup- 
ports my  contention,  viz:  to  prevent  large  communities  controll- 
ing and  dictating  such  nominations. 

"While  I  would  have  preferred  to  see  my  amendments  adopted 
as  a  matter  of  precaution,  I  could  not  record  my  vote  against 
principles  for  the  adoption  of  which  I  have  labored  for  years. 

"This  contention  applies  with  greater  force  to  the  companion 
measure  providing  for  the  Recall — particularly  In  Its  application 
to  the  judiciary." 

123  The  Senate  vote  on  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  amend- 
ment was: 

For  the  Initiative  and  Referendum — Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Bills, 
Birdsall,  Black,  Boynton,  Bryant,  Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell, 
Cassidy,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Finn,  Gates,  Hans,  Hare,  Hewitt, 
Holohan,  Kurd,  Juilliard,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Rose- 
berry,  Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Stetson,  Thompson,  Tyrrell, 
Walker  and  Welch — 35. 

Against  the  Initiative  and  Referendum — Wright— 1. 


Initiative  and  Referendum  Amendment  101 

amendments  were  defeated  almost  overwhelmingly.  The 
Initiative  and  Referendum  measure  was  then  adopted  by 
a  vote  of  71  to  0. 

In  the  two  Houses,  out  of  120  members  106  had 
voted  for  the  Initiative  Amendment,  and  only  one 
against  it. 


sr 

,— — 

4 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
THE  RECALL  OF  THE  JUDICIARY."* 

Prominent  Progressives  Took  Definite  Stand  Against 
Making  Judicial  Officers  Subject  to  the  Recall — Ef- 
fect of  the  Debates  on  the  Subject  and  of  the  Criti- 
cism of  Decisions  in  the  San  Francisco  Graft  Cases 
Was  to  Strengthen  the  Position  of  Those  Who  Held 
That  no  Exception  Should  Be  Made. 

The  Republican  and  Democratic  1910  platforms,  de- 
clared for  the  "Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall." 
There  was  no  reservation  made  in  the  declaration  of 
either  party.  But  it  developed  at  the  test  that  either 
the  Recall  paragraphs  of  the  two  platforms  were  not 
carefully  read,  or  some  who  read  them  did  not  grasp 
their  meaning. 

No  sooner  had  the  administration  taken  up  Recall 
legislation,  than  strong  opposition  to  the  Recall  of  the 
Judiciary  developed  in  the  ranks  of  the  Progressives 


124  The  direct  legislation  measures  discussed  in  this  and  the 
two  chapters  to  follow  include  only  those  which  were  submitted 
in  the  form  of  Constitutional  amendments  which  were  adopted, 
or  bills  which  became  laws. 

During  the  session  a  large  number  of  proposed  amendments 
and  bills  providing  for  Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall  under 
various  plans  were  introduced  in  both  houses.  Among  these  were 
A.  C.  A.  No.  3,  Held,  relating  to  the  legislative  power  of  The 
People;  A.  C.  A.  No.  4,  Held,  relating  to  the  recall  of  officers; 
A.  C.  A.  No.  7,  Beatty,  relating  to  the  election,  terms  and  recall 
of  judicial  officers;  A.  C.  A.  No.  8,  Griffin,  relating  to  the  legis- 
lative powers  of  The  People;  A.  C.  A.  No.  10,  Griffin,  relating  to 
the  right  of  The  People  to  recall  public  officials  and  A.  C.  A.  No. 
19,  Beatty,  relating  to  the  legislative  department  of  the  State. 


The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary  103 

themselves.125  Progressives  of  the  type  of  William  Den- 
man,  Charles  S.  Wheeler  and  Curtis  Lindley,  held  that 
to  provide  for  the  Recall  of  the  Judiciary  would  be  a 
blow  at  the  very  foundations  of  our  government. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  second  group  of  Progressives, 
numbering  men  quite  as  conservative  as  the  first  group,128 
took  the  ground  taken  by  Governor  Johnson  in  his  in- 
augural address,  that  the  Recall  should  be  made  to  apply 
to  every  official,  the  judicial  as  well  as  the  executive 
and  legislative. 

So  marked  was  the  division  of  the  Progressives  on 
this  question,  that  the  Committee  on  Direct  Legislation 
appointed  by  the  Republican  State  Central  Committee  to 
frame  constitutional  amendments  to  cover  the  Initiative, 
Referendum  and  Recall  did  not  include  the  recall  of  the 


125  Charles    S.    Wheeler,    In    the   Heney- Wheeler   debate,    before 
the   Senate  and  Assembly  Judiciary  Committees,    Feb.   3,    1911,    In 
speaking  against  the  Recall  of  the  Judiciary  said: 

"I  purpose  to  have  you  understand  at  the  outset  where  I 
stand  on  this  question.  I  consider  myself  a  Progressive  Republi- 
can. I  stood  on  this  Republican  platform  as  I  understood  it.  I 
understood  that  this  Republican  platform  provided  for  the  Recall, 
but  I  did  not  understand  that  this  Republican  platform  bound  the 
party  for  which  I  stood  in  this  campaign  to  strike  at  the  very 
foundations  of  the  government  in  which  I  live  and  which  I  have 
lifted  my  hand  to  Heaven  and  have  given  my  oath  to  support." 

126  "I  believe,"  said  Judge  J.  V.  Coffey,  for  more  than  a  gen- 
eration a  member  of  the  Superior  Bench  for  San  Francisco  Coun- 
ty,   "in    the    universal    application    of    the    Recall.     If    The    People 
are  competent  to  elect  in  the  first  instance,   they  certainly  should 
be  competent  to  re-elect  or  recall,   really  equivalent  terms." 

"It  must  be  admitted,"  said  Judge  W.  B.  Nutter  of  the  San 
Joaquin  County  Superior  Bench,  "that  he  (the  judicial  officer)  of 
all  officers,  is  the  most  important.  By  his  judgment  the  property 
rights  and  personal  liberties  of  all  who  come  before  him  are 
determined.  If  he  faithfully  performs  his  duties  as  the  law  re- 
quires that  he  should,  he  need  have  no  fear  that  The  People  who 
have  chosen  him  by  their  ballots  will  recall  him  from  the  position 
to  which  he  has  been  elected,  and  if  he  fails  to  perform  such 
duties,  then  no  other  officer,  in  my  Judgment,  should  be  more 
quickly  recalled." 


IO4  The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary 

judiciary  in  the  original  draft  of  the  Recall  measure 
which  they  prepared.126* 

At  the  informal  meeting  of  citizens  and  members  of 
the  Legislature  at  the  Palace  Hotel  in  San  Francisco,  a 
few  days  before  the  Legislature  convened,  to  hear  the 
reports  of  the  several  committees  that  had  been  appointed 
by  the  Republican  State  Central  Committee,  the  com- 
mittee on  Direct  Legislation  offered  a  Recall  amendment 
which  included  all  elected  public  officials.  Nevertheless, 
the  division  among  those  present  on  this  issue  was 
marked,  Mr.  William  Denman  in  particular  taking  a 
stand  against  including  the  judiciary  in  the  provisions  of 
the  measure. 

This  marked  division  among  the  Progressives  offered 
the  Reactionaries  wide  opening,  of  which  they  were  quick 
to  take  advantage. 

The  old  machine  element  was  opposed  to  the  Recall 
principle;  with  the  machine  in  the  saddle,  no  Recall 
amendment,  with  or  without  the  Judiciary  excluded, 
would  have  been  submitted  to  the  electors. 

When  the  Legislature  convened,  the  situation  at  Sac- 
ramento on  this  issue  was  as  follows :  All  the  Reaction- 
aries were  opposed  to  the  Recall;  all  the  Progressives 
desired  the  adoption  of  a  Recall  amendment;  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Progressives  insisted  that  the  Recall 
be  made  to  apply  to  all  elected  officials  including  judges ; 
a  minority  of  the  Progressives  insisted  that  the  Judiciary 
be  excluded  from  the  Recall  provisions. 

With  the  fine  tact  of  the  professional  politician,  the 

i26a  The  amendment  as  originally  prepared  by  the  committee 
Included  the  recall  of  all  elected  officials,  with  the  exception  of 
Judges  of  courts  of  record. 


The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary  105 

Reactionaries  carefully  refrained  from  entering  into  the 
dispute  between  the  Progressive  factions.  The  appear- 
ance of  an  old-time  machine  leader  or  lobbyist  of  the  type 
of  Jere  Burke,  or  Johnnie  Mackenzie,  or  George  Hatton, 
at  Sacramento  against  the  Recall  amendment  during 
the  1911  session,  would  have  gained  votes  for  the 
amendment.  The  Reactionaries,  in  resisting  the  amend- 
ment, found  more  effective  allies  among  the  Progressives 
than  could  possibly  have  been  picked  from  their  own 
ranks.  So  the  Reactionaries  permitted  the  open  opposi- 
tion to  the  Recall  to  come  from  Progressives,  themselves 
standing  ready  to  widen  the  breach  whenever  oppor- 
tunity offered.127 

Thus,  when  the  Recall  amendment  was  considered 
before  the  Senate  and  Assembly  Judiciary  Committees, 
the  Reactionaries  took  no  part,  leaving  a  Progressive, 
Charles  S.  Wheeler,  to  present  the  arguments  against  the 
Recall  of  the  Judiciary,  which,  in  a  different  situation, 

127  The  situation  was  not  unlike  that  of  two  years  before  when 
the  1909  Direct  Primary  bill  was  under  consideration.  All  the 
Progressives,  in  1909,  wanted  a  Direct  Primary  law  passed,  but 
when  it  came  to  the  logical  application  of  the  direct  primary 
principle  the  Progressives  divided,  as  they  divided  in  1911  over 
the  application  of  the  Recall. 

The  majority  of  them  wanted  the  direct  primary  principle  ap- 
plied to  the  election  of  United  States  Senators,  giving  The  People 
a  State-wide,  practical,  pledge-backed  vote,  as  in  Oregon.  The 
more  conservative  opposed  this — just  as  they,  at  the  1911  session, 
opposed  the  Recall  of  the  Judiciary — and  insisted  that  the  vote 
for  United  States  Senators  be  kept  within  party  lines. 

The  machine  Senators  were  quick  to  take  advantage  of  this 
division  and  finally  succeeded  in  preventing  the  adoption  of  every 
practical  plan  offered  to  secure  a  popular  expression  of  choice 
for  United  States  Senator. 

Nevertheless,  the  adoption  of  a  practical  plan  for  choosing 
United  States  Senators  was  only  delayed.  The  1911  Legislature 
adopted  the  Oregon  plan,  which  conservative  Progressives  stupidly 
assisted  crafty  Reactionaries  in  defeating  in  1909. 

Just  as  the  machine  element  employed  the  division  of  their 
opponents  in  1909  to  prevent  good  legislation,  they  employed  the 
division  over  the  application  of  the  principle  of  the  Recall  in 
1911,  but  not  so  successfully. 


io6  The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary 

would  have  been  offered  by  a  Jere  Burke  or  a  George 
Hatton. 

Francis  J.  Heney  and  Matt  I.  Sullivan  opposed  Mr. 
Wheeler,  urging  that  no  distinction  be  made,  and  that 
the  Recall  apply  to  all  officials,  including  the  Judiciary. 
The  principal  debate  was  between  Heney  and  Wheeler. 
It  brought  out  sharply  the  line  of  division  between  the 
opposing  groups  of  Progressives. 

The  two  men  were  agreed — until  the  question  of  the 
Recall  of  the  Judiciary  was  reached — upon  every  princi- 
ple for  which  the  Progressives  stand.  Wheeler  was  no 
less  positive  than  Heney  in  his  acceptance  of  the  Initia- 
tive and  Referendum ;  he  announced  also  his  acceptance 
of  the  principle  of  the  Recall  of  all  elective  officials  ex- 
cept the  Judiciary. 

Wheeler  went  further.  He  admitted  with  Heney  that 
the  Judiciary  has  usurped  legislative  functions ;  that  The 
People  have  a  grievance,  and  a  serious  grievance,128 
against  the  bench ;  that  decisions  have  been  made,  even 
by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  which  war- 
ranted the  removal  of  the  judges  making  them. 

Heney  and  Wheeler  were  as  one  up  to  this  point. 

128  "Let  us,"  said  Wheeler,  "go  to  our  foundations,  and  let 
me  tell  you  what  the  grievance  is.  It  began  fifteen  years  ago  on 
the  26th  day  of  last  May,  when  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  in  the  Income  Tax  Decision,  overruled  the  prece- 
dent of  a  hundred  years — overruled  the  law  and  invalidated  an 
income  tax  by  virtue  of  which  the  War  of  the  Rebellion  had,  in 
a  large  measure,  been  brought  to  a  successful  finish;  overruled 
all  prior  conceptions  of  the  relations  between  the  Executive  and 
Judicial  departments  of  the  Government,  and  rendered  a  decis- 
ion that  declared  that  the  income  tax  was  not  a  tax  lexied  upon 
the  land,  though  levied  upon  the  accumulative  person,  and  upon 
his  debits  and  credits — all  income;  on  real  and  personal  property; 
on  stocks  and  bonds.  Why,  at  that  moment,  not  only  was  prece- 
dent departed  from,  but  there  was  a  feeling  of  insecurity  and 
unrest  in  the  nation;  a  feeling  upon  the  part  of  the  people  that 
the  courts  could  not  be  trusted,  that  the  courts  would  usurp  the 
functions  of  the  legislative  departments  and  appropriate  them  to 
themselves." 


The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary  107 

Indeed,  Wheeler  was  even  more  scathing  than  Heney 
in  denunciation  of  courts  that  usurp  legislative  functions. 
Such  usurpation,  both  agreed,  justifies  the  removal  of 
the  judge  guilty  of  it. 

But  when  it  came  to  the  method  of  removal,  the  two 
men  differed  hopelessly. 

Heney  urged  that  the  power  of  removal  be  left  with 
The  People  who  elect;  Wheeler  that  it  be  left  with  the 
Legislature.129 

The  Heney-Wheeler  debate  was  the  most  notable 
hearing  on  the  question,  but  the  difference  which  that 
debate  developed  was  the  difference  that  divided  the  Pro- 
gressives on  the  Recall  amendment  until  the  final  vote 
was  taken  on  the  measure  in  the  Senate  on  March  8, 
less  than  three  weeks  before  the  Legislature  adjourned.130 

Under  the  State  Constitution  two  methods  are  pro- 

129  And,  yet,  In  his  argument  "Wheeler  admitted  that  when  the 
acts  of  members  of  the   bench  have  justified   their  impeachment, 
legislative    bodies    have    not    acted.     Legislative    bodies    have    not 
acted,    Wheeler   admitted,    because    the   element   that   has   profited 
by    the    vicious    decision    has    controlled    the    Legislatures.     "Why 
then,"   Wheeler  demanded,    "when   that  outcry  took  place   in   1895 
(the  outcry  against  the  decision  of  the  Federal  Supreme  Court  in 
the  Income  Tax  case),   after  this  opinion  was  rendered — why  did 
not   the   legislative   branch   of   our   Government,    in    common   self- 
respect,  put  down  the  usurpers,   though  they  were  justices  of  the 
Supreme   Court  of  the  United   States?    Why  did   they  not   assert 
the  majesty  of  the  legislative  arm  of  the  Government?    You  who 
understand   political    situations    know   why.    You   know   why;    you 
know  that  there  was   not  a  two-thirds   majority  of  The  People's 
representatives  either  in  the  Lower  House  or  in  the  Upper  House 
on  that  day;   you  know   that  no  vote  that  would  have  struck  at 
Big  Business  and  property  interests  contrary  to  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme   Court  of  the   United   States,   however  unjustified  by   the 
Constitution    it    might    be — you    know    that    no    vote    would    have 
been  obtained   to   oust   from   their  positions   the  judiciary  of  that 
day    who    had    thus    invaded    the   legislative   arm   of    the    Govern- 
ment.    Now  you  have  the  reason  why  it  was  not  used,  and  that  is 
the  only  reason." 

130  The    Heney-Wheeler    debate    after    all    resolved    itself    into 
the  question  of  how  far  The  People  are  prepared  to  trust  them- 
selves.    Johnson    made    this    exceptionally    clear    in    his    inaugural 
address.     "The  opponents,"  he  said,  "of  Direct  Legislation  and  the 
Recall,    however  they  may  phrase   their  opposition,   in   reality   be- 


io8  The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary 

vided  for  the  removal  of  a  judge  from  office.  The  first 
method  is  by  impeachment  proceedings ; 131  the  second  is 
by  concurrent  resolution  adopted  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of 
each  House.132 

The  point  which  the  Progressives  who  opposed  the 
Recall  of  the  Judiciary  insisted  upon  was  that  corruption 
in  a  judge  is  not  the  only  ground  upon  which  he  may  be 
deprived  of  his  office.  Under  impeachment  proceedings 
any  unfitness,  even  the  unfitness  of  political  associates,  is, 
it  was  contended,  sufficient  ground  for  removal.138 

lieve  The  People  cannot  be  trusted.  On  the  other  hand,  those  of 
us  who  espouse  these  measures  do  so  because  of  our  deep-rooted 
belief  in  popular  government,  and  not  only  in  the  right  of  The 
People  to  govern,  but  in  their  ability  to  govern;  and  this  leads 
us  logically  to  the  belief  that  if  The  People  have  the  right,  the 
ability,  and  the  intelligence  to  elect,  they  have  as  well  the  right, 
ability,  and  intelligence  to  reject  or  to  recall;  and  this  applies 
with  equal  force  to  an  administrative  or  a  judicial  officer." 

isi  Article  IV,  Sec.  18,  Constitution  of  1879. 

132  Article  VI,  Sec.  10,  State  Constitution  of  1879.  This  sec- 
tion provides  that,  "Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  of  the 
District  Courts  of  Appeal,  and  judges  of  the  Superior  Courts, 
may  be  removed  by  concurrent  resolution  of  both  houses  of  the 
Legislature  adopted  by  a  two- thirds  vote  of  each  house.  All  other 
judicial  officers,  except  Justices  of  the  Peace,  may  be  removed 
by  the  Senate  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Governor;  but  no 
removal  shall  be  made  by  virtue  of  this  section  unless  the  cause 
thereof  be  entered  on  the  journal,  nor  unless  the  party  complained 
of  has  been  served  with  a  copy  of  the  complaint  against  him  and 
shall  have  had  an  opportunity  of  being  heard  in  his  defense.  On 
the  question  of  removal  the  ayes  and  noes  shall  be  entered  on 
the  journal." 

188  "Any  unfitness,"  said  Wheeler  in  the  Heney- Wheeler  de- 
bate, "even  if  he  be  a  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  any  unfitness  that  may  be  alleged,  if  it  be  in  his 
political  associations,  if  after  he  has  gone  to  the  bench,  forsaking 
their  high-minded  views  of  justice,  he  allies  himself  in  the 
political  machinery  of  any  party,  though  he  be  a  Justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  he  may  be  impeached  and 
removed  for  it.  If  his  habits  become  such  that  his  general  con- 
duct tends  to  cast  doubt  and  disfavor  upon  the  judicial  office, 
dishonorable  appearances,  though  he  in  fact  be  honorable,  if  his 
dishonorable  appearances  are  such  that  they  would  cast  doubt 
upon  his  integrity,  then  it  is  in  the  power  of  the  Congress  to 
remove  him.  Anything  tending  to  degrade  the  judiciary  is  matter 
of  charge,  once  established,  the  Assembly  making  the  charge, 
and  the  Senate  by  a  two-thirds  vote  passing  it,  the  person  is 
impeached  and  the  Judge  is  removed." 


The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary  109 

But,  it  was  insisted  on  the  other  hand,  that  removal 
by  impeachment  is  impracticable,  because  of  the  length 
of  the  defense  that  could  be  made.134 

Then,  replied  the  opponents  of  the  Recall  of  judges, 
you  can  resort  to  removal  by  concurrent  resolution.  Ac- 
cording to  the  advocates  of  this  plan  a  judge  can,  under 
existing  constitutional  provision,  by  concurrent  resolu- 
tion, be  removed  from  office,  even  without  cause,  pro- 
vided two-thirds  of  the  members  of  each  House  will  vote 
for  such  removal.135 

Heney  in  his  reply  to  this  point  in  Wheeler's  argu- 
ment, referred  to  the  fact  that  in  years  passed  the  South- 
ern Pacific  political  machine  had  unquestionably  con- 
trolled two-thirds  of  the  members  of  each  House  of  the 


134  "It  would,"   said  Senator  Shanahan,  who  favored  the  recall 
of  judges,    "take   months   If   not  years    to   remove   a   judge  under 
Impeachment  proceedings.     That  is  why  impeachment  proceedings 
will    not   be    instituted.     Impeachment   proceedings   from    the   trial 
of  Warren  Hastings  to  the  present  time  have  proved  unsatisfac- 
tory.    They   have   failed.     The   defendant  is   entitled    to  be  heard; 
entitled   to   make   his   defense,   and    such   defense   may   extend   his 
trial  into  years." 

135  William  H.  Denman  contended  before  the  Senate  Judiciary 
Committee    (Feb.    15,    1911)    that  by  concurrent  resolution   a  judge 
may  be  removed  on  the  ground  that  he  is  out  of  sympathy  with 
our    institutions,    or    that    his    attitude    is    "wrong."     On    his    de- 
fense,  Denman  contended,   the  judge  could  deny  the  charges,  but 
it  would  be  for  the  Legislature   to  decide;   for  the  Legislature  to 
declare  whether  the  judge  was  a  fit  person  to  occupy  the  bench. 

Wheeler,  in  the  Heney- Wheeler  debate,  was  even  more  em- 
phatic on  this  point.  "Do  you  not  know,"  he  said,  "that  at  this 
moment  by  a  concurrent  resolution  of  both  your  Houses,  you 
may  remove  any  judge?  Only  this,  that  you  must  serve  a  copy  of 
the  complaint  on  him,  give  him  as  short  a  shrift  as  you  want — 
order  him  here  to  the  Capitol  if  you  want,  and  give  him  such 
defense  as  you  see  fit  to  let  him  have — not  more  than  ten  days, 
anyhow.  Then  if  you  will,  without  further  consideration,  pass 
upon  whether  or  not  he  has  abdicated  his  high  functions,  lost 
his  honor,  and  take  from  him  all  that  is  left,  the  semblance  of 
honor  that  a  judicial  position  gives  him;  and  If  he  be  innocent, 
even,  your  power  is  such  that  to-day  you  can  remove  him.  All 
that  stands  between  him  and  your  wrath  is  your  high  oath  that 
you  took  as  a  member  of  the  House  or  the  Senate." 


no  The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary 

Legislature,  who,  under  the  constitutional  provision 
quoted  by  Wheeler  could  remove  a  judge  without  cause. 

"Just  think  of  that,"  insisted  Heney,  facetiously. 
"Think  how  those  judges  must  have  wobbled  in  their 
seats." 

Into  the  discussion  of  the  practicability  of  removing 
an  undesirable  judge  by  impeachment  proceedings  or 
concurrent  resolution,  was  injected,  late  in  January,  the 
order  of  the  Supreme  Court,  granting  a  rehearing  of 
the  case  of  Abraham  Ruef,  convicted  of  bribing  a  San 
Francisco  Supervisor  in  the  interest  of  the  United  Rail- 
roads, the  public  service  corporation  that  controls  the 
San  Francisco  street-car  system. 

Ruef,  after  every  technical  defense  within  the  in- 
genuity of  the  criminal  lawyer  had  been  made  in  his  be- 
half, had  been  convicted  and  sentenced  to  fourteen  years 
penal  servitude  at  San  Quentin. 

The  Superior  Court  denied  Ruef's  motion  for  a  new 
trial.  On  appeal,  the  District  Court  of  Appeal  had 
affirmed  this  judgment.  The  judgment  of  the  Court  of 
Appeal  became  final  at  the  expiration  of  December  23, 
1910.  But  the  Supreme  Court  was  empowered  under 
the  State  Constitution,  to  order  the  cause  to  be  heard 
by  the  Supreme  Court,  provided  the  order  were  made 
within  thirty  days  after  the  judgment  of  the  District 
Court  of  Appeal  became  final — that  is  to  say,  thirty  days 
after  December  23,  1910,  which  made  January  22,  1911, 
the  last  day  on  which  the  Supreme  Court  could  grant  a 
rehearing,  provided  such  order  were  made.  If  the 
order  were  not  made  before  January  23,  Ruef's  last  tech- 
nical defense  would  be  gone,  and  he  would  be  obliged  to 


The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary  1 1 1 

enter  San  Quentin  to  begin  his  fourteen-year  term.  That 
the  order  might  be  issued,  it  required  the  signatures  of 
four  of  the  seven  members  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

January  22,  1911,  fell  on  a  Sunday.  On  Monday, 
January  23,  word  reached  Sacramento  that  four  of  the 
Justices — including  the  Chief  Justice — Beatty,  Lorigan, 
Henshaw  and  Melvin  had  signed  the  necessary  order. 
This  was  accepted  as  a  step  toward  granting  Ruef  a  new 
trial.  Had  a  second  trial  been  granted,  it  would  at  best 
have  been  years  before  Ruef  could  finally  be  imprisoned 
if  he  were  ever  imprisoned  at  all.138 

The  order  was  not  well  received  at  Sacramento.  The 
scandals  of  the  San  Francisco  graft  prosecution  were 
recalled,  as  was  the  character  of  the  criticisms  1ST  of  the 

136  Said   the   Sacramento  Bee  in  an  editorial  article  discussing 
this  order,  the  day  after  it  was  made  public,  January  24,  1911: 

"It  cannot  be  denied  that  this  order,  by  a  bare  majority  of 
the  Supreme  Court  and — with  the  single  exception  of  the  Chief 
Justice,  by  the  three  of  its  members  least  esteemed  and  respected 
by  the  public — has  excited  disgust  and  exasperation  throughout 
California.  There  is  a  strong  popular  feeling  and  belief  that  the 
Supreme  Court  should  not  thus  have  interposed  to  save  from 
punishment  the  most  notorious  scoundrel  and  corruptionist  in  Cali- 
fornia, a  man  known  to  everybody  as  having  enriched  himself  by 
systematic  grafting  and  by  the  bribery  of  public  servants  in  the 
interests  of  corporations,  a  man  with  many  indictments  resting 
against  him  but  convicted  only  on  one. 

"What  adds  to  this  general  disgust  and  indignation  over  the 
Supreme  Court's  order  is  apprehension  that  the  rehearing  before 
that  tribunal  may  result  in  the  grant  of  a  new  trial  for  Ruef, 
a  reversal  which  in  all  probability  would  be  equivalent  to  a  final 
discharge.  Such  changes  have  taken  place  in  San  Francisco  In 
the  last  two  years,  especially  in  the  office  of  the  District  Attorney, 
that  a  new  trial  would  have  small  chance  of  ending  in  conviction. 

"No  reasons  are  given  by  the  Supreme  Court  for  its  order  for 
a  rehearing,  but  presumably  they  are  of  a  purely  technical  sort, 
for  the  fact  of  Ruef's  guilt  was  abundantly  proved  on  the  trial." 

137  Dean    John    H.    Wigmore    of    the    Northwestern    University 
School   of  Law,   author  of   the   standard  work  on   evidence   which 
bears  his  name,  concluded  a  review  of  the  decision  in  the  Schmita 
case,  and  controversy  which  followed  that  decision,  as  follows: 

"The  truth  is  that  the  learned  Chief  Justice  (of  California)  In 
endeavoring  to  support  his  decision,  weaves  a  logical  web,  and 
then  entangles  himself  in  it. 

"Such  disputation  were  the  life  of  scholarship  and  of  the  law 
six  hundred  years  ago.  They  are  out  of  place  to-day.  There  are 


U2  The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary 

higher  court  decisions  in  the  graft  cases  where  convic- 
tions had  been  set  aside. 

And  then  came  the  astounding  rumor  that  one  Justice 
at  least  had  signed  the  order  for  a  rehearing  without 
considering  the  briefs  which  had  been  filed  in  the  case. 

The  story  was  that  Justice  Henshaw  had  left  Cali- 
fornia for  an  Eastern  State  on  January  11,  and  had 
continued  absent  from  the  State;  that  the  Attorney-Gen- 
eral's reply  to  Ruef's  petition  for  a  rehearing  had  not 
been  filed  until  the  day  following,  January  12. 

This  story  was  not  at  first  taken  seriously.138  Later 
on,  it  was  confirmed. 

The  facts  later  brought  out,  involved  the  following 
dates  :189 


enough  rules  of  law  to  sustain  them,  if  the  court  wants  to  do  so. 
And  there  are  enough  rules  of  law  to  brush  them  away,  If  the 
court  wants  to  do  that. 

"All  the  rules  In  the  world  will  not  get  us  substantial  justice 
if  the  Judges  have  not  the  correct  living  moral  attitude  toward 
substantial  justice. 

"We  do  not  doubt  that  there  are  dozens  of  other  Supreme 
Justices  who  would  decide,  and  are  to-day  deciding,  in  obscure 
cases,  just  such  points  in  just  the  same  way  as  the  California 
case.  And  we  do  not  doubt  that  there  are  hundreds  of  lawyers 
whose  professional  habit  of  mind  would  make  them  decide  just 
that  way  if  they  were  elevated  to  the  bench  to-morrow  in  place 
of  those  other  anachronistic  jurists  who  are  now  there.  The 
moral  is  that  our  profession  must  be  educated  out  of  such  vicious 
habits  of  thought.  One  way  to  do  this  is  to  let  the  newer  ideas 
be  dinned  into  their  professional  consciousness  by  public  criticism 
and  private  conversation. 

"The  Schmitz-Ruef  case  will  at  least  have  been  an  ill-wind 
blowing  good  to  somebody  if  it  helps  to  achieve  that  result." 

138  As  late  as  February  15,  the  story  was  given  little  credence 
at   Sacramento.     On   that  date,   William  Denman,    speaking  before 
the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee,  suggested  that  Justice  Henshaw, 
prior  to   his   departure   from   the    State,    had   signed   not  only  the 
order  in  the  Ruef  case,  but  five  orders. 

"Do  five  such  orders  exist?"   demanded  Senator  Cutten. 
Denman  replied  that  the  five   orders   had   been   shown   him   by 
a  member  of  the  court. 

139  See  the  records  in  the  Ruef  case,  particularly  the  order  of 
the  Supreme  Court  vacating  its  order  granting  Ruef  a  rehearing, 
filed  February  28,   1911. 


The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary  1 13 

December  31,  1910 — Ruef's  petition  for  rehearing  was 
filed  in  Supreme  Court. 

January  10 — W.  H.  Metson  was  granted  permission 
to  file  a  brief  in  the  case  as  Amicus  Curiae. 

January  10 — Justice  Henshaw  signed  the  order  grant- 
ing Ruef  a  rehearing. 

January  11 — Justice  Henshaw  left  the  State  and  was 
absent  until  after  the  order  granting  Ruef  a  rehearing  had 
been  filed.  Up  to  the  date  on  which  Henshaw  signed 
the  order,  the  record  before  the  Court  consisted  of  Ruef's 
petition,  and  the  permission  given  Metson  to  file  a  brief. 

January  12 — Metson  filed  his  brief  as  Amicus  Curiae. 

January  12 — The  Attorney-General  filed  his  reply  to 
Ruef's  petition  for  a  rehearing. 

January  19 — Justice  Melvin  signed  the  order  granting 
Ruef's  petition. 

January  20 — Attorney-General  filed  reply  to  Metson's 
brief. 

January  21 — Chief  Justice  Beatty,  and  Justices  Shaw, 
Angellotti,  Lorigan  and  Sloss,  met  in  the  chambers  of 
the  Chief  Justice  for  consultation  regarding  Ruef's  peti- 
tion. Justice  Lorigan  signed  the  order  granting  the  peti- 
tion. Justices  Shaw,  Angellotti  and  Sloss  declined  to 
concur  in  such  order,  and  Chief  Justice  Beatty  reserved 
his  decision  in  the  matter  until  January  22,  1911. 

January  22,  1911 — (Sunday,  the  last  day  on  which 
the  order  could  be  signed)  Chief  Justice  Beatty  signed 
the  order,  his  being  the  fourth  name  on  the  document, 
four  signatures  being  necessary  to  make  it  effective. 

January  23 — A  typewritten  copy  of  the  order  was 


1 14  The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary 

filed  with  the  Clerk  of  the  Court,  the  original  being  re- 
tained in  the  office  of  the  Secretaries  to  the  Justices.140 

Attorney-General  U.  S.  Webb  attacked  the  order, 
demanding  that  the  Supreme  Court  set  the  order  aside. 

This  the  Court  finally  did.  The  order  granting  Ruef 
a  rehearing  was  judicially  declared  to  be  "ineffectual 
for  any  purpose  and  void."  Ruef  went  to  State  Prison 
to  serve  his  fourteen-year  term. 

But  the  Supreme  Court  did  not  set  the  order  aside 
because  Henshaw  had  signed  the  document  before  the 
argument  of  the  prosecution  had  been  heard.  The  order 
was  set  aside  on  the  ground  that  Henshaw,  being  absent 
from  the  State  when  the  signature  of  the  fourth  justice 
was  attached  thereto,  was  at  the  time  unable  to  exercise 
any  judicial  function  as  a  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court 
Without  Henshaw's  signature,  the  signatures  of  but  three 
Justices  appeared  on  the  order.  As  the  signatures  of 
four  of  the  Justices  were  required  to  make  the  order 
effective  the  Court  declared  its  Ruef  rehearing  order  to 
be  worthless. 

These  events  coming  as  the  culmination  of  the  San 

140  On  this  point,  the  Justices  in  their  decision  vacating  their 
first  order  state,  "the  original  order,  in  accordance  with  our  uni- 
form practice,  being  retained  In  the  office  of  our  secretaries." 

In  Rule  28,  Rules  of  the  Supreme  Court,  1909,  Calendar,  ap- 
pears the  following  provision:  "All  orders  of  the  Supreme  Court 
granting  rehearings,  or  for  hearing  in  Bank  causes  decided  in 
departments,  shall  be  signed  by  the  members  of  the  Court  assent- 
ing thereto,  and  filed  with  the  Clerk." 

It  may  be  said,  however,  that  rehearings  and  hearings  in  bank 
are  distinguished  from  hearings  in  the  Supreme  Court  after  deci- 
sion In  the  District  Court  of  Appeals,  although  the  procedure  is 
practically  the  same.  It  may  be  added  that  since  the  Ruef  inci- 
dent the  rule  has  been  complied  with.  I  am  reliably  informed  that 
the  Clerk's  records  now  contain  the  original  order  in  every  case 
since  the  establishment  of  the  Appellate  Courts. 


The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary  115 

Francisco  graft  trials,  and  all  occurring  while  the  Legis- 
lature was  in  session,  created  much  adverse  comment. 

There  was  talk  of  impeachment  proceedings.  United 
States  Senator  John  D.  Works,  who  had  declared  him- 
self to  be  opposed  to  the  Recall  of  judges  by  The  Peo- 
ple,142 wrote  a  letter  to  State  Senator  Leslie  R.  Hewitt, 

142  Senator    Works    made    his    position    known    In    a    letter    to 
Mr.    Charles    S.    "Wheeler,    which    was    given    wide    publicity.    The 
letter  was  dated  February  7,  1911,  and  was  as  follows: 
"Charles   S.   Wheeler,   Esq., 

"Attorney  at  Law, 

"San  Francisco,  California. 
"My  Dear  Mr.  Wheeler: 

"I  am  glad  you  had  the  courage  and  good  Judgment  to  oppose 
the  application  of  the  Recall  to  judges.  The  Progressive  Repub- 
licans could  hardly  make  a  worse  mistake.  It  is  reform  run  mad. 
One  can  make  allowances  for  attorneys  who  made  the  fight  in 
the  San  Francisco  graft  cases.  But  a  lawyer  should  be  able  to 
rise  above  the  personal  animosities  born  of  such  a  conflict. 

"The  future  of  this  country  is  greatly  dependent  upon  a  fear- 
less and  independent  judiciary.  Any  conscientious  man,  who  has 
served  as  judge,  will  tell  you  that  he  has  been  compelled  by  his 
oath  and  his  sense  of  duty  to  render  decisions  that  were  un- 
popular with  him,  and  if  left  free  to  exercise  his  own  desires  no 
such  decisions  would  have  been  rendered.  Indeed,  the  most  diffi- 
cult thing  a  judge  has  to  do  is  to  control  his  own  feelings  and 
decide  cases  according  to  law  and  not  according  to  his  own  feel- 
ings of  sympathy  or  the  reverse. 

"Such  a  judge  will,  of  necessity,  render  decisions  that  are 
unpopular  with  the  public,  as  well  as  himself,  in  the  perform- 
ance of  his  imperative  duty.  It  will  be  just  such  unpopular  de- 
cisions that  will  arouse  public  resentment  and  induce  the  recall 
of  the  judge  who  has  the  honesty  and  the  courage  to  do  his 
duty,  often  against  his  own  feelings.  The  judge  who  will  bow 
to  his  own  feelings  or  to  public  clamor,  often  ill-founded,  will 
never  be  recalled,  while  the  judge  who  does  his  duty  will  fall  a 
victim  to  the  public  indignation  based  on  wholly  false  ideas  of 
the  duty  of  a  judge. 

"I  am  hoping  that  the  Legislature  will  listen  to  reason  before 
this  wrong  step  is  taken.  They  need  some  of  the  fortitude  and 
courage  of  a  good  and  fearless  judge  who  would  decide  the  law 
in  the  face  of  public  protest  whether  in  the  form  of  a  recall 
movement  or  in  some  other  way. 

"We  will  still  have  judges  that  will  do  their  duty  fearlessly 
in  spite  of  the  big  stick  in  the  form  of  the  Recall.  I  hope  we 
have  courageous  men  enough  in  the  Legislature  to  resist  the  public 
clamor  that  is  pressing  for  this  legislation  that  will  make  the 
weak  judge  weaker  and  encourage  the  dishonest  judge  to  decide 
cases  in  such  way  as  to  secure  public  favor  instead  of  deciding 
the  law  without  fear,  favor  or  affection.  It  will  be  a  sorry  day 
to  this  State  when  a  law  is  passed  that  must,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  degrade  the  judiciary  and  make  it  less  honest,  less  fearless, 
less  independent.  No  possible  good  can  come  of  such  legislation 
while  much  harm  may,  and  almost  certainly  will,  result  if  any 
such  law  is  enacted  and  attempted  to  be  enforced. 

"Sincerely   yours,  "JOHN   D.   WORKS." 


1 16  The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary 

in  which  he  inquired  if  the  charges  against  Judge  Hen- 
shaw  were  true,  why  impeachment  proceedings  had  not 
been  brought  against  Henshaw.148 

Mr.  William  Denman,  another  opponent  of  the  Recall 
of  the  Judiciary  by  The  People,  urged  before  the  Senate 
Judiciary  Committee  that  the  Legislature  owed  it  to  the 
Supreme  Court,  as  well  as  to  itself  and  to  the  public,  to 
make  thorough  investigation.  Denman  asked  the  com- 
mittee if  the  Legislature  would,  on  proper  showing,  de- 
clare the  office  of  a  Supreme  Justice  vacant. 

Senator  Shanahan  was  quick  to  reply  that  under  such 
a  showing  the  Legislature  would  certainly  act. 

"But,"  added  Shanahan — and  here  he  touched  the 
weak  point  of  impeachment  proceedings — "it  would  take 
months  if  not  years.  That  is  why  impeachment  proceed- 
ings will  not  be  instituted.  Impeachment  proceedings 

1*3  "If  the  charges,"  said  Senator  Works  in  his  letter  to  Hewitt, 
"made  against  Judge  Henshaw,  for  example,  by  the  Attorney- 
General  of  this  State,  under  oath,  are  true,  why  is  it  the  Legis- 
lature of  this  State  before  this  has  not  commenced  impeachment 
proceedings  against  him? 

"The  Legislature  has  no  right  to  shrink  from  this  duty  and 
responsibility  and  relieve  itself  from  taking  such  a  step  by  rele- 
gating that  duty  and  responsibility  to  The  People  of  the  State  by 
the  enactment  of  recall  legislation.  If  Judge  Henshaw,  or  any 
other  judge,  has  violated  his  duty  to  the  State  and  betrayed  his 
office  as  the  charges  made  against  him  indicate,  the  duty  of  the 
Legislature  is  imperative,  and  that  duty  should  be  performed 
without  hesitation  and  without  delay." 

.  Justice  Henshaw,  in  discussing  Judge  Works'  letter,  in  an  in- 
terview in  the  San  Francisco  Examiner,  February  15,  1911,  is 
quoted  as  saying:  "All  the  charges  made  by  Attorney-General 
Webb  in  his  affidavit  attacking  the  Ruef  rehearing  order  January 
30th  are  true.  The  orders  were  signed  in  the  manner  stated  and 
I  told  him  so  when  he  visited  my  office.  There  was  nothing  un- 
usual about  it.  It  was  done  in  accordance  with  the  usual  prac- 
tice of  this  court. 

"We  seldom  meet  In  session  to  sign  the  orders.  There  may 
be  twenty  cases  to  be  passed  on  in  one  week.  Each  Justice 
looks  them  over  at  his  leisure  and  signs  what  orders  he  agrees  to. 

"I  was  out  of  the  State,  as  Mr.  Webb  says,  and  at  the  time 
that  he  says.  I  did  not  even  imagine  that  there  was  a  legal  point 
involved.  The  practice  never  has  been  questioned  before." 


The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary  1 17 

from  the  trial  of  Warren  Hastings  to  the  present  time 
have  proved  unsatisfactory." 

As  early  as  February  1,  eight  days  after  the  order 
for  a  rehearing  of  the  Ruef  case  had  been  made,  Sena- 
tor George  W.  Cartwright  of  Fresno  introduced  a  reso- 
lution 144  requesting  the  Assembly — where  impeachment 
proceedings  must  originate — to  take  such  steps  as  might 
be  necessary  for  the  investigation  of  the  Supreme  Court's 
conduct. 

In  introducing  his  resolution  Cartwright  took  occa- 
sion to  say  that  it  was  intended  as  no  reflection  upon  the 
members  of  the  Supreme  Court.  The  Senator  insisted 
that  the  resolution  was  introduced  for  the  protection  of 
the  court. 

"If,"  said  Cartwright,  "the  criticism  of  the  court  is 
based  on  facts,  the  members  involved  should  be  im- 


f44  The   Cartwright   resolution  was  In   full  as  follows: 

"Whereas,  The  Supreme  Court  of  this  State  on  or  about  the 
23rd  of  January,  1911,  rendered  a  decision  in  the  case  of  the 
People  of  the  State  of  California  vs.  Abraham  Ruef,  In  which  the 
defendant  is  granted  a  rehearing;  and 

"Whereas,  Various  newspapers  have  published  criticisms  con- 
demning said  decision,  and  intimating  that  the  Justices  partici- 
pating therein  were  controlled  by  corrupt  and  unworthy  motives; 
and 

"Whereas,  The  integrity  of  our  courts  has  been  frequently 
assailed  by  public  speakers  and  by  many  of  our  citizens,  all  of 
which  tends  to  destroy  the  confidence  of  The  People  in  the  purity 
and  integrity  of  our  courts  of  justice;  be  it 

"Resolved  by  the  Senate,  That  the  Assembly  be  requested  to 
appoint  a  committee  of  the  Assembly,  such  committee  to  be  au- 
thorized, empowered,  and  instructed  to  investigate  the  whole  sub- 
ject matter  and  particularly  to  investigate  said  decision,  the 
grounds  upon  which  the  decision  is  based  and  the  conduct  of  the 
Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  relation  to  said  decision,  and 
that  the  committee  report  to  the  Assembly  the  results  of  such 
investigation,  with  such  recommendations  as  to  the  committee 
may  seem  meet  and  proper  in  the  premises;  be  it  further 

"Resolved,  That  said  committee  shall  have  power  to  summon 
witnesses,  and  to  send  for  persons  and  papers  and  to  issue  sub- 
poenaes  and  compel  attendance  of  witnesses  when  necessary." 


1 1 8  The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary 

peached.  If  the  criticism  is  unfounded,  the  Court  should 
be  vindicated." 

Two  weeks  after  the  Cartwright  resolution  had  been 
introduced,  six  members  of  the  Supreme  Court  joined  in 
a  communication  to  the  Legislature  requesting  that,  "by 
appropriate  committee  or  committees"  the  Legislature 
investigate  not  only  the  granting  of  the  Ruef  order,  but 
any  further  matter  touching  upon  the  Court's  conduct.149 

In  the  Assembly,  the  Supreme  Court's  letter  was  re- 

145  The  Supreme  Court's  letter  to  the  Legislature  read  as  fol- 
lows: 

"San  Francisco,   California,  February  14,   1911. 

"To  the  Honorable,  the  Senate  and  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Cal- 
ifornia in   session: 

"The  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  of  California  and  the  in- 
dividual members  thereof,  to  the  end  that  the  truth  may  be  known 
and  by  you  made  a  matter  of  public  record,  respectfully  request 
that,  by  appropriate  committee  or  committees,  you  investigate  the 
conduct  of  this  court  in  the  matter  of  the  granting  of  the  petition 
of  Abraham  Ruef  for  rehearing  in  the  case  entitled  'The  People 
of  the  State  of  California,  Plaintiff  and  Respondent,  vs.  Abraham 
Ruef,  Defendant  and  Appellant  (Grim.  No.  1655)';  and  also  that 
you  investigate  any  other  or  further  matters  touching  the  con- 
duct of  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  transaction  of  its  business 
which  to  your  honorable  bodies  shall  seem  advisable. 

"Respectfully   submitted, 

"Wm.  H.  Beatty,  C.  J.;  F.  W.  Henshaw,  J.;  F.  M.  Angellotti,  J.; 
W.  G.  Lorigan,  J. ;  M.  C.  Sloss,  J.;  Henry  A.  Melvin,  J." 

"P.  S. — Justice  Shaw,  being  temporarily  absent  from  the  city, 
it  has  been  impossible  to  get  his  views  in  reference  to  the  above 
communication.  A  copy  of  it  has  been  forwarded  to  him  at  Los 
Angeles  for  his  consideration  and  action." 

Justice  Shaw,  on  February  14,  sent  the  following  communica- 
tion to  the  Legislature: 

"February  14,    1911. 

"To  the  Honorable  the  Senate  and  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Cal- 
ifornia in  session: 

"The  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  of  California,  and  the  indi- 
vidual members  thereof,  to  the  end  that  the  truth  may  be  known 
and  by  you  made  a  matter  of  public  record,  respectfully  request 
that,  by  appropriate  committee  or  committees,  you  investigate 
the  conduct  of  this  court  in  the  matter  of  the  granting  of  the 
petition  of  Abraham  Ruef  for  rehearing  in  the  case  entitled  'The 
People  of  the  State  of  California,  Plaintiff  and  Respondent,  vs. 
Abraham  Ruef,  Defendant  and  Appellant  (Grim.  No.  1655)';  and 
also  that  you  investigate  any  other  or  further  matters  touching 
the  conduct  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  transaction  of  its 
business  which  to  your  honorable  bodies  shall  seem  advisable. 
"Respectfully  submitted, 

"LUCIAN    SHAW,    J." 


The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary  119 

ferred  to  the  Committee  on  Rules.  That  committee,  on 
February  17,  recommended  that  a  special  committee  of 
four  members  of  the  Assembly  and  three  members  of  the 
Senate  be  appointed  to  investigate  all  matters  referred 
to  in  the  communication. 

The  Assembly  adopted  a  concurrent  resolution  to  that 
end. 

In  the  Senate,  the  resolution  was  referred  to  the 
Judiciary  Committee.  Favorable  action  on  the  part  of 
the  Judiciary  Committee  would  unquestionably  have  been 
followed  by  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  by  the  Senate. 
The  Supreme  Court  would  then  have  been  investigated 
by  committee  as  its  members  asked. 

But  the  question  was  raised  as  to  what  would  come 
of  such  an  investigation. 

The  Legislature  could,  of  course,  have  appointed  such 
a  committee;  the  committee  could  have  "investigated." 
But,  regardless  of  its  findings,  the  committee  would  have 
been  powerless  to  take  definite  action.  The  only  definite 
action  that  could  have  been  taken  would  have  been  by 
impeachment  proceeding,  or  by  concurrent  resolution  plac- 
ing the  justices  on  their  defense.  These  proceedings  are 
provided  in  the  State  Constitution,  but  neither  invokes 
the  procedure  which  the  justices  asked,  investigation  "by 
appropriate  committee  or  committees." 

The  Assembly  resolution  was  not  reported  out  of  the 
Senate  Judiciary  Committee.146 

14«  The  Reactionary  press  endeavored  to  make  it  appear  that 
the  Legislature  would  investigate  the  Supreme  Court  by  committee. 

For  example,  the  San  Francisco  Examiner  in  its  issue  of 
March  1,  1911,  stated  (column  1,  page  2):  "A  legislative  com- 
mittee has  been  appointed  to  investigate  the  Supreme  Court,  but 
.whatever  the  findings  of  this  committee  will  be  it  will  have  no 
effect  on  the  status  of  Ruef." 


-I2O  The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary 

Under  the  provisions  of  the  State  Constitution,  im- 
peachment proceedings  must  originate  in  the  Assembly, 
and  the  trial  take  place  in  the  Senate. 

But  as  Senator  Shanahan  had  pointed  out,  such  a 
trial,  considering  the  technical  defense  that  could  be  ex- 
pected, would  require  months  of  discussion  and  debate. 
The  pay  of  each  member  of  Senate  and  Assembly  is  lim- 
ited to  $1000  for  the  session.  The  expenses  of  the  aver- 
age member  for  the  regular  session  require  that  amount 
and  more.  If  impeachment  proceedings  were  brought, 
the  members  would  be  required  to  remain  at  Sacra- 
mento, at  their  own  expense,  without  pay,  for  an  in- 
definite period.  This  consideration  alone  made  impeach- 
ment proceedings  impracticable. 

There  remained  the  procedure  of  removal  by  Con- 
current Resolution. 

Charles  S.  Wheeler,  in  the  Heney-Wheeler  debate, 
had  pointed  out  that  under  this  procedure  all  that  would 
be  necessary  to  place  a  member  of  the  bench  on  his  de- 
fense would  be  to  serve  him  with  a  copy  of  the  com- 
plaint. The  accused  officer  could  be  given  as  short  a 
shrift  as  the  Legislature  saw  fit.  Without  further  con- 
sideration, according  to  Wheeler,  the  Legislature  could 
then  oust  the  accused  judge  from  office,  even  though  he 
might  be  innocent  of  wrongdoing. 

William  Denman  had  pointed  out  that  a  judge  could 
be  removed  by  Concurrent  Resolution  on  the  ground  that 
he  was  "out  of  sympathy  with  our  institutions,"  or  be- 
cause his  "attitude  was  wrong." 

Unquestionably  if  these  gentlemen,  both  learned  in 
the  law,  are  to  be  accepted  as  authorities  on  the  subject, 


The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary  121 

the  Legislature  could  have  summarily  removed  any  or 
all  of  the  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  even  though 
their  conduct  in  the  Ruef  case  and  all  other  cases  were 
above  reproach. 

But  the  Legislature  took  no  such  drastic  action. 

And  why  not? 

Because,  regardless  of  their  views  of  the  conduct  of 
individual  Justices,  or  of  the  Justices'  affiliations,  associa- 
tions and  attitude,  the  members  of  the  Legislature  recog- 
nized that  The  People  of  California  would  not  sanction 
arbitrary  removal  of  any  official,  be  he  Chief  Justice  or 
Constable. 

"The  People,"  said  a  Progressive  leader  to  the  writer 
during  the  days  when  the  proposed  action  against  the 
Supreme  Court  was  under  discussion,  "do  not  desire  ar- 
bitrary ouster  any  more  than  they  desire  whitewash  of 
the  members  of  the  Supreme  Court." 

When  Mr.  Wheeler  had  suggested  removal  of  Judges 
by  concurrent  resolution,  he  had  stated,  "All  that  stands 
between  him  (the  accused  Judge)  and  your  wrath  is  your 
high  oath  as  a  member  of  the  House  and  the  Senate." 

But  it  seems  there  is  something  more  standing  be- 
tween the  Justices  and  ouster;  namely,  the  sense  of  jus- 
tice of  The  People,  which  will  not  permit  arbitrary  re- 
moval from  office  of  a  judge  whom  The  People's  votes 
have  elevated  to  the  bench. 

A  member  of  the  Legislature  might  violate  that  "high 
oath"  to  which  Mr.  Wheeler  referred  so  flatteringly.  But 
a  Legislature  will  hesitate  long  before  outraging  the 
sense  of  justice  of  The  People. 

The  Legislature  will  never,  in  California,  while  pub- 


122  The  Recall  of  the  Judiciary 

lie  opinion  continues  as  it  is,  arbitrarily  remove  a  judge 
from  office  by  concurrent  resolution. 

And,  the  proponents  of  provision  for  Recall  of  the 
Judiciary  insisted,  the  same  public  opinion  which  will 
always  prevent  arbitrary  removal  by  the  Legislature,  will 
prevent  unjust  removal  by  means  of  the  Recall,  for  the 
fair-minded  people  would  not  sanction  such  a  course. 

"If  you  had,"  said  Heney  in  the  Heney- Wheeler  de- 
bate, "a  Recall  that  trusted  the  right  of  removal,  in- 
stead of  trusting  it  to  120  members  of  the  Legislature, 
trusted  it  to  380,000  electors,  and  required  the  majority 
of  them  to  vote  for  removal  of  an  accused  Judge  before 
he  could  be  deprived  of  his  office,  what  honest  Judge 
would  stand  in  fear  of  it." 

And  to  this  view,  as  the  session  advanced,  many 
Progressives  who  in  the  beginning  had  doubted  the  wis- 
dom of  applying  the  Recall  to  the  Judiciary,  found  them- 
selves converted. 


CHAPTER  IX. 
ADOPTION  OF  THE  RECALL  AMENDMENT.147 

Opponents  of  the  Measure  Resisted  Its  Adoption  at 
Every  Stage  of  Its  Consideration  by  Senate  and  As- 
sembly— The  Amendment  Was  Finally  Adopted,  with 
Only  Fourteen  Members  of  the  Legislature  Voting 
Against  It. 

Those  charged  with  drafting  the  Recall  constitutional 
amendment,  did  not  have  the  measure  ready  for  intro- 
duction until  nearly  three  weeks  after  the  Legislature 
had  convened.  The  amendment  provided  for  the  Recall 
of  all  elected  officers,  executive,  legislative,  judicial. 

The  measure  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  on  Jan- 
uary 20,  but  nearly  a  month  elapsed  before  the  Senate 

147  The  Recall  amendment  was  introduced  In  the  Upper  House 
by  Senator  Lee  Gates  of  Los  Angeles,  and  In  the  Lower  House 
by  Assembly  William  C.  Clark. 

The  main  provision  of  the  Senate  (the  Gates)  amendment,  as 
it  was  originally  introduced,  were,  that  any  elected  officer  of  the 
State  could  be  subjected  to  a  Recall  election  upon  the  petition  of 
qualified  electors,  equal  to  8  per  cent,  of  those  voting  for  all  can- 
didates for  Governor,  with  the  further  proviso  that  an  officer 
elected  in  the  State  at  large,  rather  than  in  a  political  subdivision, 
could  only  be  subjected  to  such  Recall  election  by  a  petition  signed 
by  at  least  50,000  qualified  electors.  The  officer  sought  to  be 
recalled,  as  well  as  those  nominated  to  succeed  him,  would  all 
have  their  names  placed  upon  the  Recall  ballot,  and  the  one  re- 
ceiving the  highest  vote  would  be  declared  selected  to  serve  the 
remainder  of  the  incumbent's  term. 

The  Clark  Assembly  amendment  was  not  introduced  until  five 
days  after  the  introduction  of  the  Gates  measure.  During  these 
five  days  a  number  of  conferences  were  held  between  Senator 
Gates,  Assemblyman  Clark  and  others  interested  in  the  direct  leg- 
islation. As  a  result  of  these  conferences  several  changes  were 
made  in  the  Clark  amendment  before  its  introduction. 

The  Clark  measure  omitted  provision  that  a  petition  for  the 
recall  of  a  State  officer  must  be  signed  by  a  minimum  of  50,000 


124     Adoption  of  the  Recall  Amendment 

Judiciary  Committee,  to  which  it  had  been  referred, 
acted  upon  it. 

The  delay  was  due  to  several  causes. 

In  the  first  place  the  proponents  of  the  measure  had 
many  amendments  to  offer,  even  after  the  measure  had 
been  introduced.  The  preparation  of  these  amendments 
caused  more  or  less  delay.  And  the  opponents  of  the 

electors.  The  Clark  measure  also  differed  from  the  Gates  amend- 
ment by  providing  that  preceding  the  names  of  the  candidates 
upon  the  Recall  ballot  there  should  be  the  question:  "Shall 
(name  of  person  against  whom  the  Recall  petition  is  filed)  be 
recalled  from  the  office  of  (title  of  office)?"  An  additional  pro- 
vision was  made  that  unless  the  elector  vote  "yes"  or  "no"  on 
this  question  his  vote  for  candidates  for  the  office  shall  not  be 
counted.  Under  the  Clark  amendment,  the  incumbent  could  be 
recalled  only  in  the  event  of  a  majority  of  all  those  voting  at  the 
election,  voting  in  favor  of  declaring  his  office  vacant.  The  in- 
cumbent's name  is  not,  under  this  provision,  placed  among  the 
names  of  the  candidates  opposing  him,  on  the  ground,  that  if 
the  majority  of  those  voting  vote  in  favor  of  the  incumbent's 
recall,  it  is  not  just  that  his  name  should  be  again  voted  upon. 
If  the  majority  of  those  voting  at  the  election  shall  vote  for'  the 
recall  of  the  incumbent  he  shall  be  removed  from  office,  upon 
the  qualification  of  his  successor.  His  successor  shall  be  that 
candidate  who,  at  the  Recall  election,  receives  the  highest  vote 
for  the  office.  If  a  majority  do  not  vote  for  the  incumbent's 
recall  he  will,  of  course,  continue  in  his  office. 

The  Senate  (Gates)  measure  was  amended  to  include  these 
changes.  There  were  also  two  other  important  amendments 
adopted  in  the  Seriate  Judiciary  Committee. 

The  first  of  these  raised  the  percentage  required  to  institute 
Recall  proceedings  against  the  State  official  from  8  per  cent,  to 
12  per  cent. 

This  did  away  with  the  minimum  number  of  50,000  signatures 
required  under  the  original  draft  of  the  amendment  to  invoke  a 
Recall  election  against  an  official. 

The  second  change  provided  that  all  petitions  for  the  State- 
wide officer  shall  be  signed  in  at  least  five  counties  by  not  less 
than  1  per  cent,  of  the  entire  vote  cast  in  each  of  said  counties 
for  all  the  candidates  for  Governor  at  the  last  preceding  general 
election. 

The  second  of  these  amendments  raised  the  percentage  re- 
quired to  subject  the  district  officer,  that  is  to  say,  an  officer 
elected  in  a  political  subdivision  of  the  State,  to  20  per  cent,  instead 
of  12  per  cent. 

The  amendment  provides  that  no  officer  shall  be  subject  to 
Recall  until  he  shall  have  held  office  for  six  months.  This  does 
not  apply  to  members  of  the  Legislature  who  are  made  subject 
to  Recall  five  days  after  the  organization  of  the  Legislature.  In 
the  event  of  the  incumbents  sought  to  be  ousted  not  being  re- 
called, the  legal  expenses  of  the  Recall  election  are  to  be  paid 
by  the  State. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  amendment 
the  Recall  is  made  applicable  to  cities  and  counties. 


Adoption  of  the  Recall  Amendment     125 

Recall  were  quite  willing  that  these  delays  should  be 
prolonged. 

These  opponents,  some  of  whom  had  by  long  prac- 
tice grown  clever  as  blockers  of  good  legislation,  not 
only  acquiesced  in  the  delays,  but  craftily  encouraged 
them.  The  friends  of  the  measure  found  it  very  easy 
not  to  bring  the  Recall  to  a  vote  in  the  Senate  Judiciary 
Committee  to  which  it  had  been  referred,  but  along  to- 
ward the  middle  of  February,  when 'they  were  ready  to 
proceed,  these  proponents  found  difficulty  in  compelling 
committee  action. 

On  February  15,  an  attempt  was  made  to  bring  the 
amendment  to  final  vote.  But  no  vote  was  taken,  and 
the  measure  went  over  until  the  following  day,  February 
16.  On  February  16,  a  series  of  objections  from  va- 
rious opponents  held  the  fateful,  final  vote  off  for  an- 
other twenty-four  hours.  But  on  February  17,  after 
three  days  of  effort,  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  by 
a  vote  of  10  to  3,  reported  the  Recall  amendment  back 
to  the  Senate  with  the  recommendation  that  it  be  adopted. 

But  this  action  did  not  come  without  a  struggle  which 
kept  the  committee  in  session  for  hours  beyond  the  reg- 
ular time  of  adjournment,  although  the  effort  against  the 
Recall  was  in  pitiful  contrast  to  the  blocking  tactics 
which  were  so  effectively  used  in  the  Legislature  when 
Wolfe  was  Senate  leader  and  Leavitt  his  right-hand  man. 

Senator  Wolfe  wanted  such  provision  in  the  measure 
as  would  prevent  the  Recall  being  twice  applied  to  the 
same  official  during  a  single  term  of  office. 

Wolfe's  proposal  stirred  Senator  Gates,  author  of  the 
amendment,  to  scathing  reply.  With  sting-filled,  hon- 


126     Adoption  of  the  Recall  Amendment 

eyed  phrases,  Gates  pointed  out  that  an  official  against 
whom  the  Recall  has  been  unsuccessfully  invoked  might 
proceed  "to  take  it  out"  of  those  who  had  unsuccessfully 
attempted  to  recall  him,  thereby  making  his  recall  all  the 
more  necessary. 

Under  Gates'  velvet  hammering,  Wolfe's  contention 
shaded  away  and  was  lost  sight  of. 

The  next  move  was  to  employ  a  Progressive  against 
the  measure.  This  was  in  accordance  with  the  fixed 
policy  of  the  old-time  machine  element,  never  to  permit 
one  of  its  creatures  to  do  what  a  man  of  reputation  and 
integrity  could  be  inveigled  into  doing.  The  way  had, 
without  the  Reactionaries'  move,  been  very  well  pre- 
pared for  such  a  course. 

At  a  previous  meeting  of  the  committee,  Senator 
Larkins,  Progressive  and  Independent,  had  proposed  sev- 
eral amendments  providing : 

(1)  That  the  Recall  be  extended  to  apply  to  ap- 
pointive as  well  as  to  elective  officers. 

(2)  That  signers  of  a  recall  petition  be  restricted  to 
those  electors  who  had  voted  for  the  official  to  be  re- 
called. 

(3)  That  the  Recall  should  not  be  applied  to  the 
judiciary  until  six  months  after  the  act  complained  of. 

When  Wolfe's  objection  had  been  disposed  of,  these 
proposed  amendments  came  up  for  consideration.  They 
were  known  as  the  "Larkins  amendments,"  and  were 
voted  upon  separately. 

Senator  Gates  pointed  out  that,  as  regards  the  first, 
the  effect  of  making  appointive  offices  subject  to  the 
Recall,  would  be  to  make  appointive  offices  elective. 


Adoption  of  the  Recall  Amendment     127 

Cartwright  showed  that  the  effect  of  the  adoption  of  this 
first  Larkins  amendment  would  be  to  throw  the  whole 
Recall  measure  into  confusion.  Shanahan  stated  that  he 
opposed  any  such  policy,  holding  that  the  elected  official 
should  be  made  responsible  not  only  for  himself  but  for 
his  appointees.  The  way  to  reach  the  appointees,  Shan- 
ahan insisted,  is  through  the  elected  official.  The  pro- 
posed change  in  the  measure  was  finally  defeated  by  a 
vote  of  2  to  11. 

The  next  of  Senator  Larkins'  amendments  provided 
that  signatures  to  a  Recall  petition  should  be  restricted 
to  those  electors  who  had  voted  for  the  official  to  be 
recalled.  The  adoption  of  this  amendment  would  have 
left  the  Recall  practically  inoperative.  It  was  read  as 
"Senator  Larkins'  amendment,"  but  Larkins  had  had 
time  to  think  the  amendment  over,  and  evidently  had 
realized  its  significance. 

"I  withdraw  that  amendment,"  announced  Larkins. 

Perplexity  and  surprise  appeared  upon  the  faces  of 
the  opposition. 

Senator  Wright  assured  Larkins  that  the  proposed 
amendment  was  good. 

But  Larkins  refused  to  be  changed. 

Whereupon,  Senator  Juilliard,  to  the  surprise  of  the 
friends  of  the  Recall,  accepted  the  amendment  as  his 
own,  and  moved  its  adoption. 

But  this  amendment,  like  the  other,  was  overwhelm- 
ingly defeated,  only  Juilliard  and  Wright  voting  for  it. 

The  third  of  the  "Larkins  amendments"  was  defeated 
by  a  vote  of  2  to  11. 

This  disposed  of  the  "Larkins  amendments." 

The  next  move  came  from  Wright.    Wright  offered 


128     Adoption  of  the  Recall  Amendment 

an  amendment  to  exclude  the  Judiciary  from  the  terms 
of  the  measure. 

The  Progressives  had  been  on  the  lookout  for  this 
amendment. 

"If,"  announced  Senator  Shanahan,  "there  is  anv 
chance  of  that  amendment's  prevailing,  I  want  to  be 
heard  upon  it.  If  there  be  any  official  who  should  be 
made  subject  to  the  Recall  it  is  the  Judge." 

The  Wright  amendment,  however,  had  no  chance  of 
prevailing.  It  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  4  to  8.148 

This  brought  the  committee  to  a  point  where  final  ac- 
tion on  the  Recall  measure  could  not  with  a  good  ma- 
jority for  it,  be  further  delayed.  It  was  a  moment  of 
evident  depression  for  a  number  of  the  Senators  present. 

Senator  Wolfe  announced  that  while  he  was  not  par- 
ticularly in  favor  of  the  Recall  idea,  still  he  would  have 
given  the  measure  favorable  committee  vote  had  it  not 
been  that  the  Recall  of  Judges  was  retained  among  its 
provisions.149 

Senator  Curtin  stated  that,  although  he  would  vote 
to  refer  the  measure  back  to  the  Senate,  nevertheless  he 
reserved  the  right  to  take  whatever  course  he  deemed 
best  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  because  the  Recall  of 


148  The   Judiciary   Committee   vote  on  Wright's   amendment   to 
exclude  the  Judiciary  from  the  provisions  of  the  Recall  was: 

For  the  Wright  amendment — Curtin,  Jullllard,  Wolfe,  Wright — 4. 
Against  the  Wright  amendment — Caminettl,   Cartwrlght,   Gates, 
Hewitt,  Larkins,  Shanahan,  Thompson,  Stetson — 8. 

149  For   Senator  Wolfe's   attitude   on   the  Initiative,    State-wide 
vote  for  United   States   Senators   and  other  Progressive  measures 
and   reforms,    see   his   votes   In    the   Senate   Journals   for   the   last 
fourteen  years.    It  is  unfortunate  that  Senator  Wolfe's  denuncia- 
tion  of   these   reforms,   and   his   abuse  and   ridicule  of   those  who 
have  advocated  them,   are  not  of  record. 


Adoption  of  the  Recall  Amendment     129 

the  Judiciary  was  permitted  under  the  terms  of  the  meas- 
ure. 

Senator  Larkins  announced  that  his  vote  in  commit- 
tee would  be  negative,  for  he  believed  that  no  Judge 
should  be  called  to  account  until  at  least  six  months  had 
elapsed  after  the  act  complained  of. 

Larkins  intimated,  however,  that  he  would  support 
the  measure  on  the  Senate  floor. 

The  motion  was  that  the  Recall  amendment  be  re- 
ferred back  to  the  Senate  with  the  recommendation  that 
it  be  adopted.  The  motion  prevailed  by  a  vote  of  10 
to  3.150 

The  first  important  skirmish  in  the  fight  for  the  Re- 
call had  been  won  by  the  Progressives. 

But  before  the  Recall  amendment  could  be  submitted 
to  The  People,  the  Progressives  had  to  win  three  other 
skirmishes,  one  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  one  in  the 
Assembly  committee,  to  which  the  Senate  Recall  meas- 
ure, after  its  adoption  in  the  Upper  House,  would  be 
submitted,  and  one  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly. 

Defeat  in  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee,  brought 
the  Reactionaries,  who  in  the  contest  over  the  Recall  had 
rather  kept  in  the  background,  out  in  the  open.  Their 
efforts  were  directed  against  the  Recall  of  the  Judiciary, 
the  weakest  point,  for  here  division  showed  among  the 
Progressives. 

When  the  measure  came  up  in  the  Senate  for  final 

150  The  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  vote  on  the  Recall  amend- 
ment was  as  follows: 

For  the  Recall — Boynton,   Caminetti,  Cartwright,   Curtin,  Gates, 
Hewitt,   Juilliard,   Shanahan,   Thompson,   Stetson — 10. 

Against   the   Recall — Larkins,   Wolfe,   Wright — 3. 
6 


130     Adoption  of  the  Recall  Amendment 

consideration,  Senators  Wright  and  Wolfe  led  the  debate 
against  it. 

Wright  took  the  lead  by  offering  an  amendment  to 
exclude  the  Judiciary  from  the  terms  of  the  measure. 
Wright's  proposed  amendment  was  voted  down,151  which 
brought  the  Senate  to  the  consideration  of  the  Recall 
measure  itself. 

The  debate  for  the  proponents  of  the  Recall  was 
opened  by  Senator  Lee  Gates. 

The  right  of  The  People,  Gates  contended,  to  re- 
move officers  even  of  the  Judiciary,  is  not  disputed.  The 
issue  accordingly  narrowed  down  to  a  question  of  ex- 
pediency. Is  it  wise  to  extend  the  principle  to  the 
Judiciary? 

Senator  Gates  called  the  attention  of  his  hearers  to 
the  fact  that  whereas  we  have  limited  the  powers  of  leg- 
islators and  executives,  judicial  officers  are  clothed  with 
arbitrary  power.  He  showed  that  it  is  a  recognized  prin- 
ciple that  arbitrary  power  can  come  only  from  The  Peo- 
ple. By  providing  for  the  Recall  of  the  Judiciary,  he 
contended,  The  People  are  but  taking  back  into  the  hands 
of  the  supreme  sovereignty,  the  power  with  which  they 
have  parted. 

Quoting  the  Income  Tax  decision  as  an  example,  Sen- 

151  The  vote  on  Wright's  amendment  was  as  follows: 

For  Wright's  amendment — Boynton,  Cassidy,  Curtin,  Cutten, 
Estudlllo,  Finn,  Hewitt,  Martlnelll,  Thompson,  Wolfe  and  Wright 
—11. 

Against  Wright's  amendment — Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Bills,  Bird- 
sail,  Black,  Bryant,  Burnett,  Camlnettl,  Campbell,  Cartwrlght, 
Gates,  Hans,  Hare,  Holohan,  Hurd,  Jullllard,  Larklns,  Lewis, 
Regan,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Stetson,  Strobridge, 
Tyrrell,  Walker  and  Welch— 29. 

When  Wright,  in  the  Judiciary  Committee,  had  moved  to  ex- 
clude the  Judiciary  from  the  provisions  of  the  Recall,  Senators 
Hewitt  and  Thompson  voted  against  Wright's  amendment.  Sena- 
tor Boynton  was  present  In  the  committee  room  but  did  not  vote 
on  this  issue. 


Adoption  of  the  Recall  Amendment     131 

ator  Gates  showed  the  abuse  of  the  power  which  the 
Courts  have  arrogated  to  themselves.  In  that  Income 
Tax  case,  Gates  stated,  the  Supreme  Court  overturned 
its  own  decisions  of  a  century,  overruled  Congress,  over- 
ruled the  President,  overruled  four  of  the  nine  Justices 
of  the  Court  itself.  And  the  decision  thus  arbitrarily 
rendered,  he  continued,  is  the  law  of  the  land  to-day. 

"In  providing  for  the  Recall,"  concluded  Gates,  "we 
are  making  the  creator  greater  than  the  creature ;  we  are 
taking  back  the  arbitrary  power  which  the  creature  has 
arrogated  to  itself,  which  has  made  it  greater  than  its 
creator.  No  honest  Judge  need  fear  to  have  The  People 
take  back  the  power  which  has  been  taken  from  them." 

Senator  Wolfe  replied  to  Gates. 

Wolfe  contended  that  the  Recall  is  based  on  the 
theory  that  representative  government  has  failed  in  this 
country.  With  this  idea  as  a  basis,  Senator  Wolfe  pro- 
ceeded to  demonstrate  that  representative  government 
has  not  failed.  "America,"  he  said,  "the  land  of  the 
free,  stands  foremost  among  the  nations  of  the  world." 
Hence  the  Recall  is  unnecessary.152 

Taking  up  the  Recall  of  the  Judiciary,  Wolfe  proudly 
referred  to  the  fact  that  men  of  the  standing  of  Curtis 

152  The  edge  was  taken  off  Wolfe's  argument  by  a  curious 
Interruption  from  Senator  Lewis  of  San  Joaquin. 

Wolfe  had  drawn  a  pleasing  picture  of  "our  ancestors,"  as 
they  framed  the  Federal  Constitution. 

"It  is  a  pity,"  Wolfe  thundered,  "that  Senator  Gates  could 
not  have  been  there,  one  of  them,  to  write  the  Recall  into  the 
Constitution." 

Senator  Lewis  of  San  Joaquin  had  somehow  gotten  it  into  his 
head  that  Wolfe  was  talking  about  the  State  Constitution. 

"Senator  Wolfe,"  broke  in  Lewis,    "were  you  there?" 

This  astonishing  question  disconcerted  Wolfe. 

"Was  I   there?"   he   stammered. 

"Well,"    came   back   Lewis,    "I  was." 

The  whole  Senate  Chamber  went  dazed  for  a  moment. 

"And,"   continued   Lewis,    "if  we  had   known  about  the   Recall 


132     Adoption  of  the  Recall  Amendment 

Lindley  and  Charles  S.  Wheeler  were  with  him  on  this 
issue.  He  concluded  his  argument  by  going  over  the 
ground  covered  by  Wheeler  in  the  Heney- Wheeler  de- 
bate to  show  that  the  Recall  need  not  be  applied  to  the 
Judiciary  because  a  Judge  may  be  removed  from  office 
by  impeachment  proceedings,  or  by  concurrent  resolu- 
tion adopted  by  two-thirds  the  members  of  the  Senate 
and  Assembly. 

Senator  Wright  followed  Wolfe.  Wright's  argument 
was  an  able  presentation  of  the  side  of  those  who  oppose 
the  principle  of  the  application  of  the  Recall  to  the  Ju- 
diciary. 

Wright  spoke  with  considerable  feeling,  passionately 
denying  that  he  is  a  Reactionary,  or  that  he  opposes  re- 
form measures,  and  denouncing  Francis  J.  Heney  for 
the  part  which  Heney  took  in  support  of  the  Recall  of 
the  Judiciary  in  the  Heney- Wheeler  debate,  character- 
izing him  as  "a  man  who  spoke  in  this  chamber  with 
treason  upon  his  lips." 

In  concluding,  Wright  stated  that  he  would  vote  for 
the  Recall  of  legislative  and  executive  officers,  from  Gov- 
ernor down,  but  not  for  the  Recall  of  the  Judiciary. 

When  the  final  vote  came,  only  two  Senators,  Curtin 
and  Martinelli,  joined  with  Wolfe  and  Wright  in  voting 


we  would  have  put  It  Into  the  Constitution  of  this  State.  And  It 
Isn't  too  late  to  put  It  In  now." 

It  was  then  that  the  crowd  realized  that  the  two  Senators  had 
their  Constitutions  mixed. 

When  the  roar  of  laughter  had  subsided,  Wolfe  showed  himself 
decidedly  annoyed. 

"Mr.  President,"  he  complained,  "I  don't  like  to  be  interrupted 
by  trivial  questions." 

This  display  of  heat  called  forth  more  laughter,  which  placed 
the  ordinarily  serene  Wolfe  at  great  disadvantage. 


Adoption  of  the  Recall  Amendment     133 

against  the  Recall.  The  amendment  was  adopted  by  a 
vote  of  36  to  4.158 

The  Progressives  had  won  the  second  skirmish  for 
the  Recall  principle. 

Having  failed  to  defeat  the  Recall  amendment,  or 
any  part  of  it,  in  the  Senate,  the  opponents  of  the  meas- 
ure redoubled  their  efforts  in  the  Assembly.  The  Senate 
Judiciary  Committee,  with  but  three  votes  against  the 
measure,  had  passed  favorably  upon  it.  The  Senate  by 
a  vote  of  36  to  4  had  followed  the  Judiciary  Committee's 
course  and  recommendation.  Nevertheless,  twenty-seven 
of  the  eighty  members  of  the  Assembly  were  enough  to 
defeat  the  measure,  fifty-four  votes  in  the  Assembly  be- 
ing required  to  submit  a  constitutional  amendment  to 
The  People  for  their  approval  or  rejection. 

By  the  time  the  Gates  Recall  measure  had  reached 
the  Assembly,  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Direct  Legis- 
lation had  passed  favorably  on  the  companion  amend- 
ment which  had  been  introduced  by  Assemblyman  Clark, 
and  had  referred  it  to  a  second  committee,  the  Assembly 
Committee  on  Constitutional  amendments. 

The  Senate  (Gates)  measure  was  referred  to  the 
Assembly  Committee  on  Direct  Legislation. 

This  created  a  situation  in  which  two  Recall  meas- 
ures, practically  identical,  were  pending  at  the  same  time, 
before  separate  Assembly  committees. 

The  usual  procedure  would  have  been  to  leave  the 

IBS  The  Senate  vote  on  the  Recall  amendment  was  as  follows: 
For  the  Recall — Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boyn- 
ton,  Bryant,  Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cassidy, 
Cutten,  Estudlllo,  Finn,  Gates,  Hans,  Hare,  Hewitt,  Holohan, 
Hurd,  Juilliard,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Regan,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Sanford, 
Shanahan,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  Walker,  Welch 
—36. 

Against   the   Recall— Curtin,    Martinelli,   Wolfe,    Wright— 4. 


134     Adoption  of  the  Recall  Amendment 

Clark  amendment  in  the  Committee  on  Constitutional 
amendments,  and  press  the  Gates  duplicate,  which  had 
been  acted  upon  in  the  Senate,  to  final  adoption. 

This  is  what  the  proponents  of  the  Recall  had  planned, 
and  what  was  finally  accomplished,  but  only  after  the 
opponents  of  the  Clark-Gates  measure  had  made  a  curi- 
ous play  to  take  advantage  of  the  situation. 

The  Committee  on  Direct  Legislation  having  already 
passed  favorably  upon  the  Clark  duplicate,  there  was 
little  reason  to  believe  that  that  committee  would  not 
take  the  same  course  with  the  Gates  measure. 

Nevertheless,  when  the  Senate  measure  was  taken 
up  by  the  Direct  Legislation  Committee,  the  opposition 
was  on  hand  to  protest  against  the  measure  being  rec- 
ommended for  adoption,  unless  the  Judiciary  be  ex- 
cluded from  its  provisions.  Assemblymen  Bishop  and 
Brown  led  the  opposition.  The  measure  was  defended 
by  Senator  Lee  Gates,  and  Congressman  William  Kent. 

There  was  nothing  new  in  the  arguments  advanced 
by  the  objectors ;  nothing  new  in  the  replies.  The  pro- 
ceedings were  mere  repetition  of  a  twice-won  skirmish. 
The  outcome  was  the  same,  resulting  in  complete  defeat 
of  the  opposition.  The  committee  voted  to  send  the 
measure  back  to  the  Assembly  with  the  recommendation 
that  it  be  adopted.  The  Assembly  fixed  March  7  as  the 
day  for  the  final  vote.  The  opposition  thereupon  formed 
plans  for  carrying  their  fight  against  the  measure  to  the 
floor  of  the  Assembly. 

On  the  afternoon  of  March  6,  the  day  before  the 
final  vote  was  to  be  taken,  Assemblyman  Bishop  appeared 
before  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Constitutional  Amend- 


Adoption  of  the  Recall  Amendment     135 

rnents,  with  which  the  Clark  duplicate  of  the  Gates  meas- 
ure had  been  left,  and  endeavored  to  have  the  duplicate 
resurrected. 

Bishop  proposed  that  the  Clark  duplicate  be  amended 
by  striking  out  provision  for  the  recall  of  all  officials, 
except  the  Judiciary,  and  reported  back  to  the  Assembly 
immediately. 

The  next  move  of  the  Bishop  plan,  was  to  amend  the 
Gates  measure  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly,  by  striking 
out  the  provision  for  the  Recall  of  the  Judiciary. 

Under  this  arrangement,  there  would  be  two  Recalls 
before  the  Assembly.  One  of  them,  the  Clark  measure, 
providing,  as  Bishop  would  have  had  it  amended,  for 
the  Recall  of  Judges  alone;  and  the  second,  the  Gates 
measure,  which  had  already  passed  the  Senate,  providing, 
should  the  Bishop  amendment  be  adopted,  for  the  Recall 
of  all  elected  officials  except  Judges. 

But  the  Committee  refused  to  assist  in  any  such  un- 
dertaking. The  Clark  amendment  was  not  reported  out. 
Bishop  and  his  associates  thereupon  prepared  to  make 
their  fight  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly. 

On  the  night  before  the  final  vote  was  taken,  thir- 
teen 154  Assemblymen  who  opposed  the  Recall  of  Judges, 
met  in  caucus,  and  agreed  to  stand  together  on  the  floor 
of  the  Assembly  to  divide  the  measure. 

Somewhat  extravagant  boasts  were  made.  The  op- 
position held  that  it  controlled  twenty-eight  Assembly 
votes,  one  more  than  sufficient  to  defeat  the  Recall  amend- 
ment. Unless  the  Gates-Clark  people  agreed  to  division, 

154  Those  generally  credited  with  attending  the  caucus  were: 
Brown,  Rosendale,  Bishop,  Schmltt,  Freeman,  Hall,  Walker,  Gogh- 
Ian,  Cronin,  Crosby,  Griffiths,  Jones,  Stevenot — 13. 


136     Adoption  of  the  Recall  Amendment 

the  opposition  threatened  to  use  the  twenty-eight  votes 
to  defeat  the  Gates-Clark  measure. 

On  the  floor  of  the  Assembly,  the  leadership  in  the 
fight  against  the  Gates-Clark  Recall  passed  into  abler 
hands  than  those  of  Assemblyman  Bishop.  Assembly- 
man M.  R.  Jones  of  Contra  Costa  County 155  headed  the 
opposition. 

Mr.  Jones  offered  an  amendment  to  exclude  Justices 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  Justices  of  the  District  Court  of 
Appeal  and  Judges  of  the  Superior  Court,  from  the  Re- 
call provisions. 

Here  was  the  test  of  the  strength  of  the  Recall  prin- 
ciple in  the  Assembly.  The  amendment  which  Mr.  Jones 
had  proposed  had  behind  it  the  Reactionaries  bent  upon 
defeating  the  Recall  in  any  form,  and  the  ultra-conserva- 
tive Progressives,  who  were  opposing  the  application  of 
the  Recall  to  the  Judiciary.  Nevertheless,  Jones'  amend- 
ment, after  a  day  of  debate,  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of 
20  to  59.156  The  28  votes  which  the  opposition  had 
boasted,  had  not  shown. 

The  vote  on  the  amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Jones 
was  decisive  defeat  of  the  opponents  of  the  Recall. 

155  Assemblyman    Jones    during    the    session    showed    himself 
one  of  the  cleverest  men  who  have  sat  in  the  Lower  House  of  the 
California  Legislature.     But  Assemblyman    Jones   can   scarcely  be 
regarded    as    a    Progressive.     In    the    reorganization    of    California 
politics    during   the    next   half   decade,    that   must   come   after   the 
re-setting  of  the  lines  which  has  followed  Johnson's  election,   the 
case   of  Assemblyman  Jones  bids  fair  to   be  an   interesting  study 
in  politics.     Mr.  Jbnes  is  connected  with  the  Law  Department  of 
the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Company. 

156  The  vote  on  the  Jones   amendment  was   as   follows: 

For  the  Jones  amendment — Messrs.  Bennink,  Bishop,  Bliss, 
Brown,  Coghlan,  Cronin,  Crosby,  Freeman,  Griffiths,  Hall,  Harlan, 
Jones,  Lynch,  Maher,  McGowen,  Rosendale,  Schmitt,  Stevenot, 
Sutherland  and  Walker — 20. 

Against  the  Jones  amendment — Messrs.  Beatty,  Beckett,  Bene- 
dict, Bohnett,  Butler,  Callaghan,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Cogswell, 
Cunningham,  Denegri,  Farwell,  Feeley,  Fitzgerald,  Flint,  Gaylord, 


Adoption  of  the  Recall  Amendment     137 

Other  amendments  were  proposed  by  Brown  and  Bishop, 
but  they  lacked  hearty  backing  or  support.  The  effective 
opponents  of  the  Recall  had,  with  the  announcement  of 
the  vote  on  the  Jones  amendment,  recognized  their  de- 
feat. Other  amendments  were  offered,  but  Mr.  Jones 
was  author  of  none  of  them.  When  the  final  roll  call 
came  the  Recall  amendment  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of 
70  to  10,  every  member  being  in  his  seat  and  voting.157 

In  Senate  and  Assembly  106  legislators  voted  for 
the  Recall  amendment,  and  14  against.  Every  member 
of  both  houses  voted  for  or  against  it.  Seldom,  if  ever, 
has  the  entire  vote  of  the  California  Legislature  been 
cast  for  a  measure.  In  this  particular,  the  record  of  the 
Recall  amendment  is  unique. 

The  consideration  given  the  amendment  was  also  ex- 
ceptional. Never  before,  probably,  had  a  measure  before 
the  California  Legislature  been  so  thoroughly  studied 
and  discussed.  Especially  is  this  true  of  that  feature  of 

Gerdes,  Griffin  of  Modesto,  Guill,  Hamilton,  Hayes,  Held,  Hinkle, 
Hewitt,  Hinshaw,  Jasper,  Joel,  Judson,  Kehoe,  Kennedy,  Lamb, 
Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco,  Malone,  March, 
McDonald,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Mullally,  Nolan,  Polsley,  Preisker, 
Randall,  Rimlinger,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco,  Rogers  of  Ala- 
meda,  Rutherford,  Ryan,  Sbragia,  Smith,  Stuckenbruck,  Telfer, 
Tibbits,  Walsh,  Williams,  Wilson,  Wyllie,  Young— 59. 

157  The  Assembly  vote  on  the  Recall  amendment  was  as  fol- 
lows: 

For  the  amendment — Messrs.  Beatty,  Beckett,  Benedict,  Ben- 
nink,  Bliss,  Bohnett,  Butler,  Callaghan,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark, 
Cogswell,  Cunningham,  Denegri,  Farwell,  Feeley,  Fitzgerald,  Flint, 
Freeman,  Gaylord,  Gerdes,  Griffin  of  Modesto,  Griffiths,  Guill, 
Hamilton,  Hayes,  Held,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jasper,  Joel, 
Judson,  Kehoe,  Kennedy,  JLamb,  Lynch,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles, 
Lyon  of  San  Francisco,  Maher,  Malone,  March,  McDonald,  Mc- 
Gowen,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Mullally,  Nolan,  Polsley,  Preisker,  Ran- 
dall, Rimlinger,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco,  Rogers  of  Alameda, 
Rosendale,  Rutherford,  Ryan,  Sbragia,  Slater,  Smith,  Stevenot, 
Stuckenbruck,  Sutherland,  Telfer,  Tibbits,  Walsh,  Williams,  Wil- 
son, Wyllie,  Young — 70. 

Against  the  amendment — Messrs.  Bishop,  Brown,  Coghlan, 
Cronin,  Crosby,  Hall,  Harlan,  Jones,  Schmitt  and  Walker — 10. 


138     Adoption  of  the  Recall  Amendment 

the  amendment  which  extends  the  principle  of  the  Recall 
to  the  Judiciary.  Had  the  vote  on  the  measure  been 
taken  on  the  opening  day  of  the  session,  a  different  show- 
ing would  unquestionably  have  been  made.  But  after 
thorough  investigation  and  consideration  members  who 
had,  at  the  beginning  of  the  session  doubted  the  policy 
of  making  judges  subject  to  the  Recall,  came  to  the  view 
expressed  by  Heney  as  set  forth  in  the  previous  chapter ; 
and  by  Governor  Johnson,158  who,  when  the  final  contest 
in  the  Assembly  had  been  won,  said:  "Under  an  elect- 
ive system  the  Recall  should  be  applied  to  all  officers. 
It  will  make  no  weak  Judge  weaker,  nor  a  strong  Judge 
less  strong.  It  will  be  a  warning  and  a  menace  to  the 
corrupt  only." 


IBS  Governor  Johnson  In  an  Interview  printed  in  the  Sacra- 
mento Bee  the  day  following  the  adoption  of  the  Recall  by  the 
Assembly  said: 

"We  began  this  administration  with  a  very  simple  plan  for 
accomplishing  what  we  told  The  People  of  the  State  of  California 
we  intended  to  do. 

"The  one  pledge  to  The  People  was  that  we  would  restore  this 
Government  to  The  People. 

"The  administration  sought  to  do  this  by  taking  from  those 
who  had  represented  private  interests  in  the  Government,  and 
making  the  public  service  responsible  alone  to  The  People. 

"When  the  administration  had  accomplished  its  design  in 
this  respect,  then  the  Legislature  had  its  part  to  play  in  bringing 
to  The  People  the  power  by  which  The  People  could  continue  to 
make  their  servants  responsive  alone  to  the  Government. 

"The  Legislature  accorded  this  power  by  the  adoption  of  the 
Initiative  and  Referendum  amendment  in  the  first  instance,  and 
of  the  Recall,  which  was  yesterday  adopted,  in  the  last  instance. 

"The  plan  by  which  we  began  the  administration  has  there- 
fore been  as  far  as  possible  consummated. 

"The  public  service,  wherever  it  could  be  made  so  has  been 
made  servant  of  The  People  alone. 

"With  the  adoption  of  the  Constitutional  Amendments  provid- 
ing for  the  Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall,  it  is  now  up  to 
The  People  for  themselves  to  determine  whether  the  power  shall 
continue  to  be  lodged  hereafter,  where,  under  our  form  of  govern- 
ment it  always  should  be,  in  The  People  themselves. 

"Under  an  elective  system  the  Recall  should  be  applied  to  all 
offices.  It  will  make  no  weak  judge  weaker,  nor  a  strong  judge 
less  strong.  It  will  be  a  warning  and  a  menace  to  the  corrupt 
only." 


CHAPTER  X. 
DIRECT  LEGISLATION  MEASURES. 

The  Legislature,  So  Far  as  Lay  in  Its  Power,  Granted, 
by  Statute,  the  Recall,  Initiative  and  Referendum  to 
Municipalities  and  Counties. 

In  addition  to  the  Recall,  and  the  Initiative  and  Ref- 
erendum amendments  submitted  to  the  electors  for  rati- 
fication, the  Legislature  passed  two  Direct  Legislation 
measures.  The  first  of  these,  introduced  by  Senator 
Marshall  Black  of  Palo  Alto,  grants  powers  of  the  Ini- 
tiative, Referendum  and  Recall  to  municipalities  of  the 
fifth  and  sixth  classes,159  and  the  second,  introduced  by 
Assemblyman  Held  of  Mendocino,  extends  the  same  pow- 
ers to  counties.160 

The  purpose  of  these  measures  was  to  establish  the 
Recall,  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  California  so  far 
as  can  be  done  without  Constitutional  amendment. 
Neither  of  the  two  measures,  however,  was  given  the 

no  All  California  cities,  other  than  those  of  the  fifth  and  sixth 
classes,  may  adopt  charters,  In  which  provision  may  be  made  for 
the  Initiative  and  Referendum,  and  for  the  Recall.  The  principal 
cities  of  California,  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles,  and  most  of 
the  smaller  cities,  have  already  availed  themselves  of  this  oppor- 
tunity. 

ieo  Governor  Johnson  In  his  inaugural  address  said  on  this 
point:  "It  has  been  suggested  that  by  immediate  legislation  you 
can  make  the  Recall  applicable  to  counties  without  the  necessity 
of  constitutional  amendment.  If  this  be  so,  and  if  you  believe  In 
the  adoption  of  this  particular  measure,  there  is  no  reason  why 
the  Legislature  should  not  at  once  give  to  the  counties  of  the 
State  the  right  which  we  expect  to  accord  to  the  whole  State  by 
virtue  of  constitutional  amendment." 


140  Direct  Legislation  Measures 

careful  consideration  accorded  the  amendments.  Ques- 
tions were  raised  as  to  the  constitutionality161  of  the 
measures.  But  the  bills  were  finally  passed. 

Nevertheless,  there  was  opposition.  Since  the  op- 
ponents of  Direct  Legislation — while  pretending,  by  the 
way,  to  be  in  hearty  accord  with  it — could  not  defeat  the 
Direct  Legislation  measures,  the  attempt  was  made  to 
amend  them  into  ineffectiveness. 

The  Black  bill  had  been  referred  to  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Municipal  Corporations.  That  committee,  in 
the  absence  of  several  members  known  to  favor  the 
measure,  raised  the  percentage  of  votes  required  to  in- 
voke a  Recall  election  from  25  to  40  per  cent.182  The 
measure  was  then  referred  back  to  the  Senate  with  the 
recommendation  that  it  become  a  law  with  the  40  per 
cent,  provision. 

Had  the  amendment  been  adopted,  the  high  percent- 
age required  to  invoke  a  Recall  election,  would  have 
been  practically  prohibitive.163 

iei  The  Held  law,  for  example,  provides  for  the  recall  of 
county  supervisors.  The  terms  of  office  of  supervisors  are  fixed 
by  the  State  Constitution.  The  objection  was  raised  that  an 
amendment  of  the  Constitution  is  necessary  before  supervisors 
can  be  made  subject  to  the  Recall  principle. 

162  The  percentages  required  for  an  Initiative  petition  were  also 
raised,  but  the  Increase  was  not  necessarily  prohibitive  as  In  the 
case  of  the  Recall.  All  the  percentages,  as  provided  In  these  bills, 
It  will  be  observed,  are  high.  This  Is  due  to  the  fact  that  they 
affect  comparatively  small  bodies  of  voters,  and  a  lower  percentage 
would  make  the  number  of  individuals  necessary  to  validate  a 
petition  unreasonably  few.  This  is  particularly  true  of  the  Black 
bill,  which  affects  the  smallest  municipalities  of  the  State. 

168  Milton  T.  U'Ren,  Secretary  and  Treasurer  of  the  Direct 
Legislation  League  of  California,  in  speaking  of  the  committee's 
amendment,  said:  "The  effect  of  such  a  requirement  (the  40  per 
cent,  requirement)  will  be,  of  course,  to  absolutely  prevent  any 
use  of  the  power  granted.  It  would  be  just  as  well  and  certainly 
a  great  deal  more  honest  to  vote  directly  against  the  bill.  To  those 
who  have  made  a  study  of  the  operation  of  Direct  Legislation  in 
other  States  as  well  as  this,  such  a  requirement  is  absolutely 
ridiculous." 


Direct  Legislation  Measures  141 

The  committee's  action  was  vigorously  denounced  by 
the  proponents  of  the  measure.  These  proponents,  how- 
ever, finally  consented  to  a  compromise,  by  which  the 
percentage  was  fixed  at  33  per  cent.  With  this  per- 
centage, the  measure  finaly  passed  the  Senate  without  a 
dissenting  vote.16* 

But  the  Assembly  refused  to  accept  the  increase,  and 
by  amendment  restored  the  percentage  to  the  original  25 
per  cent.  The  Senate  accepted  the  change,  and  with 
the  Recall  percentage  the  same  as  when  the  measure 
had  been  originally  introduced,  the  Black  bill  went  to  the 
Governor  for  his  signature.165 

The  Initiative  and  Referendum  provisions  of  the  meas- 
ure require  a  petition  signed  by  30  per  cent,  of  the  elect- 
ors, as  shown  by  the  last  preceding  general  municipal 
election,  to  call  a  special  election  to  vote  upon  an  ini- 
tiated measure.  If  the  proposed  law  is  to  be  voted  upon 
at  a  general  municipal  election,  a  15  per  cent,  petition 
is  sufficient  to  have  the  measure  submitted  to  the  elect- 


164  Senate  vote  on  Senate  Bill  360  was  as  follows: 

For  the  bill — Avey,  Bell,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boynton,  Cam- 
inettl,  Cartwrlght,  Cassidy,  Curtin,  Cutten,  Finn,  Gates,  Hare, 
Hewitt,  Holohan,  Kurd,  Juilliard,  Larking,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  Re- 
gan, Roseberry,  Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Stetson,  Strobridge, 
Thompson,  Tyrrell,  Walker,  Welch,  Wolfe  and  Wright — 34. 

Against    the    bill — None. 

165  The  Assembly  vote  on  Senate  Bill  360,  giving  the  Initiative, 
Referendum   and    Recall    to    municipalities    of    the   fifth   and   sixth 
classes,  was  as  follows: 

For  the  bill — Beatty,  Beckett,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Bishop,  Bliss, 
Bohnett,  Brown,  Butler,  Callaghan,  Cattell,  Clark,  Coghlan,  Cogs- 
well, Cronin,  Crosby,  Cunningham,  Denegrl,  Feeley,  Flint,  Free- 
man, Gaylord,  Gerdes,  Guill,  Hamilton,  Hayes,  Held,  Hinkle,  Hin- 
shaw,  Jasper,  Joel,  Judson,  Lamb,  Lynch,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles, 
Lyon  of  San  Francisco,  Maher,  McDonald,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Pol- 
sley,  Preisker,  Randall,  Rimlinger,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco, 
Rogers  of  Alameda,  Rosendale,  Sbragia,  Schmitt,  Slater,  Smith, 
Stevenot,  Sutherland,  Telfer,  Tibbits,  Walsh,  Wilson  and  Young 
—58. 

Against    the   bill — Jones — 1. 


142  Direct  Legislation  Measures 

ors.  To  compel  the  submission  of  an  act  that  has  been 
passed  by  the  municipal  legislative  body  to  a  referendum 
vote  of  the  city,  a  25  per  cent,  petition  is  required. 

The  Held  bill  (Assembly  bill  100)  follows  the  same 
general  provisions  of  Senate  bill  360,  except  that  the 
Held  bill  applies  to  counties  instead  of  to  municipalities. 

Under  the  Held  bill,  a  20  per  cent,  petition,  esti- 
mated on  the  vote  for  Congressman  cast  in  the  county 
at  the  last  preceding  Congressional  election,  is  required 
to  call  a  special  election  to  pass  upon  an  initiated  meas- 
ure; a  ten  per  cent,  petition  is  sufficient  to  have  an 
initiated  measure  submitted  at  a  general  election. 

The  percentage  required  for  a  petition  to  submit  an 
act  of  the  Supervisors  to  a  Referendum  vote,  or  to  in- 
voke the  Recall  of  a  county  official,  is  fixed,  in  both 
cases,  at  20  per  cent. 

The  Held  bill  passed  both  Senate  and  Assembly  with- 
out a  dissenting  vote. 


CHAPTER  XL 
RAILROAD  MEASURES. 

The  Ineffective  Wright  Railroad  Regulation  Law,  Which 
Had,  at  the  /pop  Session,  Been  Substituted  for  the 
Stetson  Bill,  Was  Repealed,  and  the  Eshleman  Bill, 
Based  on  the  Stetson  Measure  of  1909,  Passed — 
Constitutional  Amendments  Making  Radical  Changes 
in  the  Provisions  Dealing  With  the  Railroad  Com- 
mission and  Its  Work  Were  Submitted  to  The  People. 

The  key  to  the  record  of  the  1911  Legislature  on 
railroad  regulation  is  found  in  Governor  Johnson's  in- 
augural address. 

"I  beg  of  you,"  said  Johnson,  "not  to  permit  the  bogie 
man  of  the  railroad  companies,  'Unconstitutionally,'  to 
deter  you  from  enacting  the  legislation  suggested,  if  you 
believe  that  legislation  to  be  necessary;  and  I  trust  that 
none  of  us  will  be  terrified  by  the  threat  of  resort  to  the 
courts  that  follows  the  instant  a  railroad  extortion  is 
resented  or  attempted  to  be  remedied.  Let  us  do  our 
full  duty,  now  that  at  last  we  have  a  Railroad  Commis- 
sion that  will  do  its  full  duty,  and  let  us  give  this  Com- 
mission all  the  power  and  aid  and  resources  it  requires; 
and  if  thereafter  legitimate  work  done  within  the  law 
and  the  Constitution  shall  be  nullified,  let  the  conse- 
quences rest  with  the  nullifying  power." 

The  members  of  the  1911  Legislature  did  not  permit 


144  Railroad  Measures 

themselves  to  be  deterred  by  the  bogie  man,  "Unconsti- 
tutionality" ;  they  were  not  terrified  by  the  threat  of  resort 
to  the  courts ; 166  they  did  what  'men  thoroughly  familiar 
with  law  governing  railroads,  and  the  constitutional  pro- 
visions affecting  railroads,  declare  to  be  legitimate  work 
within  the  law  and  the  Constitution.  The  1911  Legis- 
lature put  upon  the  California  Statute  books  what  has 
been  declared  to  be  the  most  comprehensive  railroad 
regulation  measure  that  has  ever  been  enacted. 

The  measure  was  drawn  by  Railroad  Commissioner 
John  M.  Eshleman,  Attorney-General  U.  S.  Webb,  and 
State  Senator  John  W.  Stetson,  author  of  the  Stetson  16T 
bill  of  1909,  upon  which  the  1911  measure  is  based. 
The  three  were  assisted  by  William  R.  Wheeler,  the  rail- 
road expert,  and  Seth  Mann,  who  has  long  acted  for 
California  shipping  interests  in  litigation  for  reasonable 
freight  rates.  Eshleman  directed  the  work  of  preparing 
the  bill,  he,  himself,  writing  the  greater  part  of  it.  The 
measure  became  known  as  the  Eshleman  bill. 

With  the  exception  of  Mr.  Wheeler,  each  of  the  five 
framers  of  the  Eshleman  act  is  a  lawyer ;  each  has  made 
a  special  study  of  railroad  legislation;  each  has  excep- 
tional knowledge  of  the  laws  governing  transportation 

166  On  January  30,  1911,  the  Sacramento  Bee  printed  a  striking 
cartoon.    It    represented    the    members    of   the    Supreme    Court    in 
session,  with  several  documents  on  the  floor  in  front  of  the  bench. 
One   was    labeled    "Schmitz    decision";    one,    "Ruef   decision,"    re- 
ferring1 to  the  order  for  a  rehearing  in  the  Ruef  case  which  was 
then  agitating  the  State;  one,   "R.  R.  decision."     Before  the  bench 
was    a   plain    citizen,    with    a   hook    labeled    "RECALL.."    Justices 
Henshaw  and  Lorigan  are  shown  as  pulled  from  the  bench  with 
the  "Recall"  hook;  Melvin  as  half  rising  from  his  seat.     The  cap- 
tion  was:     "WILL,   THIS   HAPPEN  IN   1912?" 

167  For  the  manner  in  which  the  Stetson  bill  was  defeated,  and 
the  Wright  Railroad  Regulation  bill — which  Attorney-General  Webb 
has  humorously  described  as   the  Wrong  bill — was  passed,    at   the 
1909    session,    see    "Story   of    the    California    Legislature    of   1909." 
The  Wright  law  was  repealed  at  the  1911  session. 


Railroad  Measures  145 

companies,  and  keen  understanding  and  appreciation  of 
the  limitations  upon  a  State  legislative  body  called  upon 
to  enact  a  railroad-regulating  statute. 

This  is  particularly  true  of  Railroad  Commissioner 
Eshleman,  who  has  given  the  laws  governing  railroads 
careful  study.  Not  only  has  Commissioner  Eshleman 
studied  and  weighed  the  constitutional  provisions  and 
restrictions  of  his  own  State,  governing  railroad  regula- 
tion, but  he  is  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  railroad  law 
and  decisions  of  other  States,  as  well  as  with  the  rules 
and  the  decisions  of  the  Federal  Courts  and  the  Inter- 
state Commerce  Commission. 

It  is  not  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  no  attorney  in 
California  is  more  soundly  versed  in  railroad  law  than 
is  Railroad  Commissioner  Eshleman.  It  is  equally  true 
that  no  judge  on  the  Supreme  Bench — and  the  same 
probably  holds  true  of  the  judges  of  the  several  Appellate 
Courts — has  had  better  opportunity  to  inform  himself 
upon  questions  of  railroad  law.  The  people  of  Califor- 
nia, then,  have  had  the  advantage  of  the  best  legal  talent 
in  the  framing  of  the  Eshleman  railroad  regulation  law.169 

And  to  every  point  in  the  Eshleman  bill,  Commis- 
sioner Eshleman  and  his  associates  applied  the  test  of 
constitutionality.  The  best  legal  authorities  in  Califor- 
nia on  the  subject  of  railroad  regulation  are  of  the  opin- 


168  Governor  Johnson  in  his  address  at  the  State  University 
commencement  exercises  (1911),  as  reported  in  the  San  Francisco 
Call,  took  occasion  to  say  of  Commissioner  Eshleman: 

"The  University  of  California  has  done  much  for  the  State,  and 
its  future  rests  largely  on  what  its  graduates  will  accomplish. 
Here  is  a  university  medalist  of  twenty-seven  years  ago  on  my 
right,  and  there  before  me  is  the  hope  of  the  State  for  the  next 
four  years,  in  the  president  of  the  Railroad  Commission,  John 
Eshleman,  who  is  a  graduate." 


146 


Railroad  Measures 


ion  that  the  Eshleman  law  will  stand  every  constitu- 
tional test.169 

The  measure  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Sen- 
ator Stetson  of  Oakland  and  in  the  Lower  House  by 
Assemblyman  Bohnett  of  San  Jose. 

As  has  been  said,  the  Eshleman  bill  was  based  on 
the  Stetson  railroad  measure  of  1909.  The  1911  meas- 
ure followed  the  Stetson  bill  in  its  principal  provisions, 
notably  in  authorizing  the  Railroad  Commissioners  in 
cases  of  dispute  over  rates  to  establish  "absolute,"  or 
"fixed,"  rates  of  railroad  charges,  to  which  the  railroads 
shall  not  fail  or  refuse  to  conform,  instead  of  "maximum" 
rates  only,  for  which  the  railroads  contend. 

Then,  too,  the  theory  of  the  Eshleman  law,  as  was 
also  in  the  case  of  the  Stetson  bill,  is  that  all  railroad 
discrimination  is  unjust;  that  the  physical  valuation  of 
railroads  is  necessary  for  intelligent  consideration  of 
the  transportation  problem ;  that  the  State  Board  of  Rail- 
road Commissioners  must  be  made  an  effective  body.170 

169  "If,"    said    a   prominent   attorney   to    the   writer   when    dis- 
cussing the  Eshleman  law,  "the  courts  find  the  Eshleman  act  un- 
constitutional, It  will  be  because  they  want  to." 

170  Heretofore,    the    struggle   for    railroad    regulation    has    been 
between  the  railroads  and  the  shippers.    The  shippers  have  com- 
paratively little  care  how  high  the  rates  may  be,  so  long  as  the 
rates  be  equal  and  stable,   for  the  consumer  in  the  end  pays  the 
rates.     Senator  La  Follette  of  Wisconsin  in  discussing  the  Federal 
railroad  measure  touched  upon  this  point:     "There  is  not,"  he  said, 
"one    line    in    the   Statute    to   give   the   people   reasonable   railroad 
rates.    All   that   has   been   accomplished   is    to   afford  a   means   of 
giving  equal  rates  to  the  shippers." 

The  policy  of  the  present  California  State  administration  goes 
further.  The  keynote  of  Governor  Johnson's  message  to  the 
Legislature  on  the  subject  of  railroad  regulation  was  the  ne- 
cessity for  reasonable  rates.  "That  the  necessity  for  action  ex- 
ists in  the  matter  of  fixing  railroad  rates  within  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia," says  Governor  Johnson  in  a  message  on  the  subject,  which 
will  be  found  in  the  Senate  and  Assembly  Journals  of  Jan.  13, 
1911,  "is  demonstrated  by  the  rates  themselves;  and  that  you 
may  thoroughly  understand  this  necessity  and  may  realize  the  ex- 
cessive charges  with  which  the  people  of  this  State  have  been 


Railroad  Measures  147 

But  the  Eshleman  measure  goes  even  further  than 
the  Stetson. 

To  make  the  Railroad  Commission  really  effective, 
for  example,  the  Eshleman  law  gives  the  Railroad  Com- 
missioners power  to  punish  for  contempt  corporations 
and  persons  that  resist  the  authority  which  the  Commis- 
sion enjoys  under  the  law.  The  measure  provides  that 
those  in  contempt  of  the  Commission  shall  be  punished  in 
the  same  manner  and  to  the  same  extent  as  contempts 
are  punishable  by  courts  of  record. 

Thus  the  Eshleman  bill  was  well-calculated  to  meet 
with  even  stronger  opposition  from  the  railroads  than 
had  been  given  the  Stetson  bill.  Nevertheless,  railroad 
lawyers,  although  every  opportunity  was  given  them  to 
do  so,  did  not  appear  before  legislative  committees  to 
protest  against  the  passage  of  the  Eshleman  bill  as  they 
had  done  when  the  Stetson  bill  was  under  consideration 
in  1909.170* 

On  the  evening  of  January  24,  the  Senate  Commit- 
tee on  Corporations  and  the  Assembly  Committee  on 
Common  Carriers  met  in  joint  session  to  permit  the  rail- 
road representatives  to  state  publicly  their  objections  to 
the  bill  if  they  had  any. 

Two  years  before,  Peter  F.  Dunne  of  the  Southern 

burdened,  I  quote  to  you  some  of  the  rates  that  I  am  Informed 
are  now  being  charged  our  people.  No  other  demonstration  than 
the  mere  recitation  of  these  figures  Is  necessary  In  behalf  of  any 
measure  designed  to  afford  the  people  of  the  State  of  California 
adequate  relief  from  the  extortion  of  the  transportation  companies." 
The  Eshleman  bill,  in  which  Governor  Johnson's  suggestions 
are  carried  out,  goes  far  toward  providing  means  for  establishing 
not  only  stable  rates  which  will  be  advantageous  to  the  shipper, 
but  reasonable  rates  which  will  do  justice  to  the  consumer  who, 
in  the  final  analysis,  pays  the  rates. 

iroa  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,"  Chapters 
XII,  XIII,  XIV. 


148 


Railroad  Measures 


Pacific  Law  Department,  before  a  similar  joint  meeting 
of  the  two  committees,  had  led  in  the  denunciation  of 
the  Stetson  bill,  provisions  of  which — all,  by  the  way, 
contained  in  the  Eshleman  bill — Mr.  Dunne  declared  to 
be  unconstitutional.  But  Mr.  Dunne  did  not  appear  to 
protest  against  the  Eshleman  bill,  nor  did  any  other 
railroad  attorney. 

The  night  of  the  joint  hearing,  however,  railroad  at- 
torneys packed  the  Senate  chamber  where  the  meeting 
was  held.  They  sat  in  silence  while  the  proponents  of 
the  measure  explained  the  various  features  of  the  pro- 
posed law. 

When  the  proponents  had  done,  the  crowd  that 
packed  the  chambers  bent  forward  in  anticipation  of 
the  vigorous  objections  which  the  railroad  representatives 
had  raised  two  years  before. 

But  the  railroad  lawyers  continued  in  silence  without 
a  word  to  say.171 

Senator  L.  H.  Roseberry  was  presiding. 

"There  seems,"  said  Roseberry  finally,  "to  be  a  spirit 

in  Several  explanations  were  given  for  the  silence  of  the  rail- 
road lawyers.  One  had  it  that  the  railroad  people  realized  that 
the  Legislature  could  not  be  "bluffed."  Another  was  that  the 
proponents  of  the  Eshleman  bill  were  prepared  to  meet  the  argu- 
ments that  had  been  advanced  in  1909  against  the  Stetson  bill,  a 
fact  of  which  the  opponents  were  well  aware. 

The  railroad  agents  argued  in  1909,  for  example,  that  in  the 
Fresno  rate  decision — one  of  the  most  significant  productions  of  the 
California  Supreme  Court,  by  the  way — the  court  had  held  that 
the  Legislature,  under  the  Constitution,  cannot  authorize  the  State 
Railroad  Commissioners  to  establish  fixed  or  absolute  railroad  rates. 
This  representation  unquestionably  had  much  to  do  with  the 
defeat  of  the  Stetson  bill. 

At  the  joint  committee  under  discussion,  Attorney-General  U.  S. 
Webb  was  present  with  a  statement  from  Justice  Shaw  of  the 
Supreme  Court  which  set  forth  that  the  Supreme  Court  had  made 
no  such  ruling. 

Justice  Shaw's  statement  had  been  made  before  the  Common- 
wealth Club  at  San  Francisco.  In  part,  Justice  Shaw  said:  "It 
has  been  recently  asserted  in  public  journals  and  in  public  dis- 
cussions that  the  Supreme  Court  has  decided  that,  under  the 


Railroad  Measures  149 

of  bashfulness  and  backwardness  on  the  part  of  railroad 
representatives  which  was  not  here  two  years  ago." 

This  sally  provoked  a  smile,  but  not  a  word  did  it 
fetch  from  the  railroad  agents.  They  sat  in  somber  si- 
lence until  the  meeting  adjourned.  Then  they  went  out. 

In  addition  to  the  joint  meeting  the  Senate  and  As- 
sembly committees  met  repeatedly  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  every  detail  of  the  bill.  As  the  situation 
developed,  some  time  could  be  gained  by  passing  the 
measure  in  the  Assembly  before  the  Senate  took  action 


scheme  provided  in  the  Constitution,  neither  the  Railroad  Commis- 
sion nor  the  Legislature,  nor  both  In  co-operation,  have  power 
to  fix  any  rate  for  transportation  except  maximum  rates,  and 
that  when  such  rates  are  fixed  the  carrier  must  be  left  at  liberty 
to  charge  any  lower  rate,  and  change  such  rates  from  time  to 
time,  as  it  pleases  within  the  maximum.  For  example,  that  a 
carrier  may  lower  its  rate,  temporarily,  while  it  is  engaged  in 
making  contracts  chiefly  with  large  shippers  for  heavy  shipments 
and  for  the  purpose  of  giving  such  shippers  an  advantage,  in 
effect  a  rebate,  and  may  immediately  raise  the  rates  to  the  estab- 
lished maximum  after  the  large  operators  have  completed  their 
contracts,  and  that  the  Legislature  and  Railroad  Commission  are 
powerless  to  forbid  or  prevent  this  practice. 

"I  am  speaking  now,  of  course,  of  rates  upon  lines  which  have 
no  competitor.  It  may  surprise  some  of  my  hearers  to  be  in- 
formed that  no  such  decision  has  ever  been  made.  No  case 
has  ever  come  before  the  Supreme  Court  in  which  any  such  ques- 
tion was  raised,  or  in  which  any  such  statement  has  been  made 
by  the  Court.  The  only  conceivable  cause  for  the  mistake  is  a 
remark  made  in  the  course  of  the  argument  in  the  Fresno  rate 
case  above  mentioned.  The  Court  there  said:  '"We  do  not  under- 
stand that  the  Railroad  Commissioners  do  more  than  to  prescribe 
the  maximum  charge  allowable.' 

"But  this  had  reference  to  what  the  Railroad  Commission  had 
done,  not  to  what  it  might  do,  or  had  the  power  to  do.  It  is 
scarcely  necessary  to  say  that  it  furnishes  no  foundation  for  the 
supposed  doctrine  attributed  to  the  court.  No  such  question  was 
involved  in  that  case.  In  no  other  case  has  the  subject  even  been 
approached.  The  question  whether  or  not  the  provision  in  the 
Constitution  imposing  a  fine  upon  carriers  who  refuse  to  'con- 
form* to  the  rates  fixed  by  the  Commission  prohibits  the  carrier 
from  charging  a  lower  rate,  or  deprives  the  Commission  and  the 
Legislature  of  power  to  forbid  a  carrier  to  make  a  change  of 
rate  without  the  consent  of  the  Commission  is  still  an  open 
question  so  far  as  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  are  con- 
cerned." 


150  Railroad  Measures 

upon  it.  This,  the  proponents  proceeded  to  do.172  As- 
semblyman Bohnett,  following  a  plan  formed  by  himself 
and  Senator  Stetson,  who  had  charge  of  the  bill  in  the 
Senate,  proceeded  to  bring  the  measure  to  final  vote  in 
the  Assembly.  On  February  4,  the  bill  passed  the  Lower 
House  by  a  vote  of  47  to  0.17S 

The  measure  was  not  delayed  in  the  Senate.     Four 
days  after  its  passage  in  the  Assembly,  by  a  Senate  vote 


172  The  Incident  was  made  the  basis  of  an  article  character- 
istic of  the  underhanded  opposition  that  was  given  the  Eshleman 
bill  and  other  Progressive  measures.  The  article  appeared  in  the 
San  Francisco  Chronicle  of  February  6.  It  set  forth  that  Stetson 
was  annoyed  and  angry  that  Bohnett  should  have  forced  the  bill 
through  the  Assembly,  before  the  Senate  could  act  upon  it,  thus 
training  credit  which  Stetson  claimed  was  deserved  by  himself. 

The  article  was  ridiculous  upon  its  face.  Nevertheless,  Senator 
Stetson,  on  a  question  of  personal  privilege,  publicly  repudiated 
the  story.  "Upon  my  desk  this  morning,"  said  Stetson,  "I  ob- 
served on  the  outside  sheet  of  a  newspaper  a  picture  labeled  with 
my  name  and  described  with  the  following  legend:  'Senator  Stet- 
son, who  feels  slighted  by  Assembly's  action.'  The  action  referred 
to  is  the  act  of  the  Assembly  in  passing  Assembly  Bill  No.  463, 
companion  bill  to  Senate  Bill  No.  333,  in  advance  of  Senate  action 
on  the  latter.  It  would  be  painful  to  me  to  think  that  any  of  my 
colleagues  believed  there  were  true  grounds  for  the  statement  in 
the  paper.  In  these  days  of  untrammeled  press,  it  is  often  diffi- 
cult for  a  man  to  be  effectively  jealous  of  his  reputation  for 
honesty  or  discretion,  but  I  am  concerned  that  I  should  be  charged 
with  so  petty  a  spirit  in  relation  to  a  matter  so  fraught  with 
importance  to  the  people  of  this  State.  I  take  this  occasion  to 
say  that  the  question  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  is  of  tremendous 
importance,  as  I  view  it:  the  question  of  who  gets  it  passed  is 
of  a  most  trifling  importance.  I  therefore  wish  to  say  that  the 
action  of  Mr.  Bohnett  in  presenting  the  bill  for  final  passage 
was  upon  my  suggestion,  and  with  my  full  understanding  and 
approval,  though  I  cannot  say  it  would  have  been  any  impro- 
priety on  his  part,  or  any  occasion  for  chagrin  or  annoyance  on 
my  own,  had  the  case  been  otherwise." 

ITS  The  Assembly  vote  on  the  Eshleman  Railroad  Regulation 
bill  was: 

For  the  Eshleman  bill — Beatty,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Bishop,  Bliss, 
Bohnett,  Brown,  Butler,  Cattell,  Cogswell,  Cronin,  Crosby,  Denegri, 
Farwell,  Flint,  Freeman,  Gaylord,  Griffin  of  Modesto,  Hamilton, 
Harlan,  Held,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jasper,  Jones,  Joel,  Jud- 
son,  Lamb,  Lynch,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  McGowen,  Mott,  Randall, 
Rodgers  of  San  Francisco,  Rosendale,  Rutherford,  Slater,  Smith, 
Stevenot,  Stuckenbruck,  Sutherland,  Walker,  Williams,  Wilson, 
Wyllie  and  Young — 47. 

Against   the   Eshleman   bill — None. 


Railroad  Measures  151 

of  33  to  0,  the  bill  was  sent  to  the  Governor  "4  for  his 
approval.175 

174  The  passage  of  the  Eshleman  bill  was  regarded  as  one  of 
the  most  noteworthy  achievements  of  the  session.  Governor  John- 
son, in  an  interview  printed  in  the  Sacramento  Bee,  Feb.  9,  1911, 
said  of  it: 

"The  greatest  achievement  of  the  present  Legislature,  and  in- 
deed of  any  Legislature  of  the  State  of  California  in  the  last  few 
decades,  was  witnessed  yesterday  when  the  railroad  bill  finally 
passed  the  Senate. 

"The  long  flght  against  the  domination  of  the  Southern  Pacific 
at  last  is  ended  in  triumph  for  The  People.  The  part  that  could 
be  performed  by  the  lawmaking  body  of  the  State  is  concluded, 
and  if  the  Legislature  should  adjourn  to-day  it  could  do  so  with 
the  full  consciousness  of  duty  well  performed  and  of  a  pledge  to 
the  people  faithfully  and  honestly  kept. 

"The  accomplishment  in  the  passage  of  this  Act  designed  to 
afford  relief  to  a  long  suffering  commonwealth  from  the  exactions, 
discriminations  and  extortions  of  transportation  companies,  is  a 
lasting  monument  to  every  man  who  participated  in  the  contest. 

"It  matters  not  what  ultimately  may  be  the  fate  of  the  bill 
that  will  become  a  law  as  soon  as  it  reaches  the  hands  of  the 
Chief  Executive,  we  have  kept  faith  with  the  people  of  the  State. 
It  is  with  the  people  now  to  see  that  their  other  servants  keep 
the  faith  as  well. 

"The  real  contests  henceforth  upon  railroad  rates  will  be  trans- 
ferred to  the  Railroad  Commission  and  I  know  that  that  Commis- 
sion will  fairly,  justly  and  courageously  do  its  full  duty.  What 
wondrous  things  have  happened.  But  a  short  year  ago  the  all 
powerful  Southern  Pacific  ruled  the  fairest  State  in  the  Union 
as  if  it  were  a  feudal  dependency.  One  year  of  agitation  and 
education,  of  standing  for  the  right,  of  never  swerving  or  going 
backward,  has  redeemed  the  State,  has  placed  its  government  in 
the  hands  of  the  people,  and  we  have  the  remarkable  spectacle  of 
the  Legislature — so  long  controlled  and  manipulated  by  Mr.  Herrin 
and  the  Southern  Pacific — unanimously  passing  a  bill  to  give  the 
people  their  own. 

"I  congratulate  and  thank  the  Legislature,  I  congratulate  the 
State  of  California  upon  the  dawn  of  a  new  era — a  new  era  where- 
in justice,  fair  dealing  and  the  rights  of  the  people  shall  prevail." 

ITS  The  Senate  vote  on  the  Eshleman  bill  was  as  follows: 

For  the  Eshleman  bill — Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Boyn- 
ton,  Bryant,  Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cassidy,  Curtin,  Cut- 
ten,  Estudillo,  Finn,  Gates,  Hans,  Hare,  Holohan,  Juilliard,  Lar- 
kins.  Lewis,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Stetson, 
Strobridge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  Welch  and  Wright — 33. 

Against    the    Eshleman    bill — None. 

Later  in  the  day  Senators  Kurd,  Hewitt,  Walker  and  Black,  as 
a  matter  of  personal  privilege,  announced  that  had  they  been  pres- 
ent in  the  Senate  Chamber  when  the  Eshleman  bill  was  voted  upon, 
they  would  have  voted  for  the  measure. 

Of  the  Senators  who  voted  for  the  Eshleman  bill,  Bell,  Bird- 
sail,  Boynton,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Curtin,  Cutten,  Holohan, 
Lewis,  Rush,  Sanford,  Stetson,  Strobridge  and  Thompson  had 
supported  the  Stetson  bill  at  the  1909  session;  while  Bills,  Burnett, 
Estudillo,  Finn,  Hare,  Martinelli,  Welch  and  Wright  had  sup- 
ported the  Wright  bill,  as  against  the  Stetson  bill. 


152  Railroad  Measures 

In  addition  to  the  Eshleman  Railroad  Regulation  act, 
the  Legislature  adopted  three  resolutions  submitting  to 
the  electors  amendments  to  those  sections  of  the  State 
Constitution  which  deal  with  railroad  and  railroad  reg- 
ulation. 

The  ratification  of  these  amendments  is  announced 
as  these  pages  are  going  through  the  press.  Their  rati- 
fication makes  important  changes  in  the  fundamental 
law"  of  railroad  regulation  in  this  State. 

The  first  of  the  amendments  is  known  as  Assembly 
Constitutional  Amendment  No.  50. 

This  amendment  makes  four  principal  changes  in  the 
Constitution : 

( 1 )  That  before  a  railroad  company  may  increase  an 
intrastate  rate,  under  any  circumstances  whatsoever,  it 
must  first  secure  the  consent  of  the  State  Railroad  Com- 
mission.176 

(2)  That  the  decision  of  the  Railroad  Commission 
upon  a  showing  made  as  to  the  justification  of  the  in- 

176  This  change  in  the  State  Constitution  is  made  necessary  by 
the  decision  In  the  Fresno  rate  cases. 

Article  XII,  Section  20  of  the  State  Constitution  as  it  at  pres- 
ent reads,  provides  that  "whenever  a  railroad  corporation  shall, 
for  the  purpose  of  competing  with  any  other  common  carrier,  lower 
its  rates  for  transportation  of  passengers  or  freight  from  one 
point  to  another,  such  reduced  rates  shall  not  be  again  raised  or 
increased  from  such  standard  without  the  consent  of  the  govern- 
mental authority  in  which  shall  be  vested  the  power  to  regulate 
fares  and  freights." 

This  would  appear  to  be  clear  enough.  But  in  the  Fresno  rate 
cases  the  California  Supreme  Court  held,  among  other  things,  that 
the  "governmental  authority  vested  with  the  power  to  regulate 
rates,"  is  the  Legislature  and  not  the  Board  of  Railroad  Commis- 
sioners. The  court  held  further  that  rates  are  not  lowered,  for 
the  "purpose  of  competing"  with  another  common  carrier,  within 
the  meaning  of  the  Constitution,  when  they  are  lowered  to  meet 
what  the  court  deemed  a  "destructive  rate"  first  inaugurated  by 
a  rival  company. 

The  change  proposed  in  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment 
No.  50  is  intended  to  clear  away  the  confusion  caused  by  the  de- 
cisions in  the  Fresno  cases.  Under  the  proposed  new  wording  of 
the  section,  no  railroad  may  raise  any  rate,  on  any  plea,  without 
first  securing  permission  from  the  Railroad  Commission. 


Railroad  Measures  153 

crease  in  a  rate  shall  not  be  subject  to  review  by  the 
courts  except  upon  the  question  whether  such  decision  of 
the  Commission  will  result  in  confiscation  of  property. 

(3)  Eliminates  from  Article  XII,  Section  20,  of  the 
State  Constitution,  the  clause  which  prohibits  contracts 
between  railroads  or  other  common  carriers  combining  to 
share  earnings.177 

(4)  The  Railroad  Commission  is  authorized  to  make 
discriminating  rates  for  long  distance  hauls.178 

The  second  of  the  three  constitutional  amendments  is 
known  as  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment  No.  6.  It 
deals  with  the  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners,  making 
the  following  changes : 

(1)  The  number  of  commissioners  is  increased  from 
three  to  five. 

(2)  Their  terms  are  made  six,  instead  of  four  years. 

ITT  The  clause  thus  eliminated  from  the  Constitution  reads  as 
follows:  "No  railroad  company  or  other  common  carrier  shall 
combine  or  make  any  contract  with  the  owners  of  any  vessel  that 
leaves  port  or  makes  port  in  this  State,  or  with  any  common  car- 
rier, by  which  combination  or  contract  the  earnings  of  one  doing 
the  carrying  are  to  be  shared  by  the  other  not  doing  the  carrying." 

178  The  vote  by  which  A.  C.  A.  No.  50  was  submitted  to  the 
people  was  as  follows: 

In  the  Assembly: 

For  the  amendment — Beatty,  Beckett,  Benedict,  Bennink, 
Bishop,  Bliss,  Bohnett,  Brown,  Butler,  Cattell,  Clark,  Cogswell, 
Cronin,  Crosby,  Cunningham,  Denegri,  Farwell,  Feeley,  Flint,  Free- 
man, Gerdes,  Griffin  of  Modesto,  Hayes,  Held,  Hewitt,  Hinshaw, 
Jasper,  Jones,  Joel,  Judson,  Kehoe,  Kennedy,  Lynch,  Lyon  of 
Los  Angeles,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco,  Malone,  McDonald,  Mc- 
Gowen,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Polsley,  Preisker,  Randall,  Rogers  of 
Alameda,  Rosendale,  Rutherford,  Ryan,  Sbragia,  Slater,  Smith, 
Stevenot,  Sutherland,  Telfer,  Williams,  Wilson,  Wyllie,  Young — 57. 

Against  the  amendment — None. 


In    the   Senate: 

For  the  Amendment — Avey,  Bell,  Bills,  Black,  Boynton,  Burnett, 
Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Curtin,  Cutten,  Gates,  Hewitt, 
Holohan,  Hurd,  Juilliard,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Roseberry, 
Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell, 
Walker,  Welch  and  Wolfe — 30. 

Against    the    amendment — None. 


154  Railroad  Measures 

(3)  The  commissioners  are  to  be  appointed  by  the 
Governor,179  instead  of  elected  as  heretofore. 

(4)  Appointments  may  be  made  from  the  State  at 
large,  thus  doing  away  with  the  State  Railroad  Commis- 
sion districts.    The  Legislature,  however,  is  authorized  to 
divide  the  State  into  districts  for  such  appointments  if  it 
sees  fit. 

(5)  The  terms  of  the  commissioners  expire  on  dif- 
ferent dates,  instead  of  on  the  same  date  as  at  present. 

(6)  The  Board  is  authorized  to  delegate  its  power  to 
one  of  its  members,  which  will  enable  the  commission  to 
conduct  five  investigations  at  one  time. 

(7)  Existing  doubts  as  to  the  right  of  the  Legislature 
to  confer  additional   powers   upon  the   Board  are   re- 
moved.180 

The  third  and  last  of  the  series   of  Constitutional 

179  Inasmuch  as  this  amendment  has  been  ratified,  the  present 
railroad  commissioners  will  hold  office  until  the  first  Monday  after 
January  1,  1915.  The  two  additional  members  provided  for  in  the 
amendment  will  be  appointed  by  the  Governor  to  serve  until  that 
date.  On  the  first  Monday  after  January  1,  1915,  the  Governor 
will  appoint  five  commissioners,  the  term  of  one  of  whom  will 
expire  in  January,  1917;  the  terms  of  two  in  January,  1919,  and 
the  terms  of  the  two  remaining,  in  January,  1921.  The  commis- 
sioners to  be  appointed  after  January,  1915,  will  each  serve  for 
six  years.  Thus  no  governor  will,  after  the  1915  appointments, 
appoint  a  full  commission. 

On  the  first  Monday  after  January  1,  1915,  Hiram  W.  Johnson 
will  be  Governor  of  California.  He  will  appoint  the  five  com- 
missioners to  hold  office  as  described  above.  Thus  the  ratifica- 
tion of  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment  No.  6  assures  to 
the  State  continuance  of  the  policy  of  the  present  administration 
as  regards  the  regulation  of  railroads  and  public  service  corpora- 
tions until  four  years  after  the  first  Monday  after  January  1,  1915, 
since  a  majority  of  the  present  governor's  appointees  will  hold 
office  until  January,  1919. 

iso  The  vote  by  which  A.  C.  A.  No.  6  was  submitted  to  the 
people  was  as  follows: 

In  the  Assembly: 

For  the  amendment — Beatty,  Beckett,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Bliss, 
Bohnett,  Brown,  Butler,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Cogswell,  Crosby, 
Denegri,  Farwell,  Feeley,  Fitzgerald,  Gaylord,  Gerdes,  Griffin  of 
Modesto,  Guill,  Hall,  Hamilton,  Harlan,  Hayes,  Held,  Hewitt, 
Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jones,  Joel,  Judson,  Kehoe,  Kennedy,  Lamb, 
Lynch,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco,  Maher,  Ma- 
lone,  March,  McDonald,  McGowen,  Mott,  Nolan,  Preisker,  Randall, 


Railroad  Measures  155 

Amendments  bearing  upon  the  work  of  the  State  Rail- 
road Commission  is  known  as  Senate  Constitutional 
Amendment  No.  47. 

The  change  which  this  amendment  makes  in  the  State 
Constitution  authorizes  the  Legislature  to  place  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  State  Railroad  Commission  every 
conceivable  kind  of  public  service  except  that  furnished 
by  municipality-owned  plants.  Once  the  Legislature  con- 
fers powers  upon  the  commission,  all  similar  powers 
theretofore  vested  in  the  several  counties  of  the  State 
shall  cease.  The  same  is  true  of  municipalities,  except  in 
such  cases  as  a  municipality  may,  by  majority  vote,  decide 
to  retain  particular  powers  of  regulation  of  public  utilities 
now  vested  in  them.181 

Rimlinger,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco,  Rogers  of  Alameda,  Rosen- 
dale,  Rutherford,  Sbragia,  Smith,  Stevenot,  Stuckenbruck,  Suther- 
land, Tibbits,  Walker,  Williams,  Wilson,  Wyllie,  Young — 63. 

Against  the  amendment — Bishop,  Freeman,  Jasper,  Mendenhall, 
Mullally,  Polsley — 6. 

In  the  Senate: 

For  the  amendment — Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Bills,  Blrdsall,  Black, 
Boynton,  Bryant,  Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Gas- 
sidy,  Curtin,  Cutten,  Finn,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Holohan,  Juilliard, 
Lewis,  Regan,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson, 
Tyrrell,  Walker,  Welch,  Wright — 31. 

Against  the  amendment — Hurd,  Larkins,  Martinelli,  Sanford, 
Shanahan,  Wolfe — 6. 

isi  The  vote  by  which  S.  C.  A.  No.  47  was  submitted  to  the 
people  was  as  follows: 

In   the   Senate: 

For  the  amendment — Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Bills,  Boynton,  Bryant, 
Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cassidy,  Cutten,  Estu- 
dillo,  Finn,  Gates,  Hans,  Hewitt,  Holohan,  Hurd,  Larkins,  Marti- 
nelli, Regan,  Roseberry,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Strobridge,  Thompson, 
Walker,  Welch  and  Wolfe — 30. 

Against  the  amendment — Wright — 1. 

In  the  Assembly: 

For  the  amendment — Beatty,  Beckett,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Boh- 
nett,  Brown,  Butler,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Coghlan,  Cogswell, 
Cronin,  Denegri,  Farwell,  Fitzgerald,  Flint,  Freeman,  Qaylord, 
Gerdes,  Griffin  of  Modesto,  Griffiths,  Guill,  Hall,  Hamilton,  Hayes, 
Held,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jasper,  Jones,  Joel,  Judson,  Lamb, 
Lynch,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco,  Malone,  Mc- 
Gowen,  Mendenhall,  Preisker,  Randall,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco, 
Rogers  of  Alameda,  Rosendale,  Rutherford,  Smith,  Stevenot,  Stuck- 
enbruck, Sutherland,  Telfer,  Tibbits,  Walker,  Williams,  Young — 56. 

Against   the    amendment — Polsley — 1. 


CHAPTER  XII. 
THE  CONSERVATION  MEASURES. 

Definite  Provisions  Made  for  Listing  the  State's  Natural 
Resources  and  for  Regulating  Their  Use — Character 
of  Opposition  at  Previous  Sessions. 

The  so-called  "Conservation"  bills  which  were  con- 
sidered at  the  1911  session  of  the  Legislature,  dealt  with 
conditions  that  were  unknown  when  the  State  Constitu- 
tion was  adopted  in  1879. 

These  conditions  result  generally  from  the  passage  of 
natural  resources  under  private  control,  but  find  their 
most  important  expression  in  the  utilization  of  the  falling 
waters  of  California  streams  for  power  purposes.  It 
was  with  this  feature  that  the  1911  Legislature  dealt 
principally. 

When  long-distance  transmission  of  electric  power 
had  been  made  practical,  the  falling  waters  at  once  be- 
came enormously  valuable.182  This  value  was  due  to  an 

182  Former  Governor  George  C.  Pardee  stated  before  the  Na- 
tional Education  Association,  that  the  power  which  could  be 
developed  from  these  falling  waters,  would  equal  the  labor  of  65,- 
000,000  men. 

"In  California  alone,"  said  Governor  Pardee,  "the  streams  are, 
it  is  estimated,  capable  of  generating  5,000,000  horsepower  of  elec- 
trical energy.  The  work  of  one  horsepower  of  electrical  energy  is 
estimated  to  be  equivalent  to  the  labor  of  thirteen  men.  Califor- 
nia's 5,000,000  water  horsepower,  therefore,  represent  the  labor  of 
65,000,000  tolling  men;  and  the  30,000,000  horsepower  used  in  the 
United  States  to-day  accomplish  the  work  of  390,000,000  men. 

"He  who  controls,  then,  the  water  powers  of  this  country  will 
be,  In  effect,  the  owner  of  an  army  of  slaves  over  four  times 


The  Conservation  Measures  157 

application  of  electric  power  transmission,  theretofore 
unheard  of. 

As  the  conditions  thus  suddenly  brought  about  were 
entirely  new,  no  provision  to  meet  them  had  been  made 
in  the  laws  of  the  State.  Indeed,  Legislature  after 
Legislature  had  failed  to  take  any  step  toward  regulating 
or  restricting  such  appropriation.  There  was  not,  up  to 
the  1911  session,  any  comprehensive  law  on  California 
statute  books  for  the  disposition  of  this  water  wealth. 
Under  the  system  of  appropriation  followed,  any  person 
wishing  to  take  water  from  a  stream,  or  to  use  such 
water,  posted  a  notice  of  the  amount  he  proposed  to 
take,  and  took  it.183 

With  the  development  of  electric  power  transmission, 
water  power  worth  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars,  its 
value  little  understood,  was  lying  unprotected  by  law,  at 
the  mercy  of  the  first  to  appropriate  it. 

This  wealth,  until  it  passed  into  private  hands,  be- 
longed to  all  The  People  of  the  State.  Those  interested 
in  grabbing  it,  kept  knowledge  of  the  situation  from  the 
public,  so  far  as  possible,  and  sent  agents  to  Sacramento 

greater  In  number  than  the  90,000,000  men,  women  and  children 
now  within  the  borders  of  this  Union. 

"Who  shall  own  that  army,  direct  the  energies  of  that  enor- 
mous power,  and  levy  toll  upon  those  who  use  the  products  of  its 
labor?  Shall  it  be  a  very  few  of  our  people.  Shall  that  toll,  its 
size  set  by  those  few,  be  collected  from  every  American  citizen 
by  those  whose  natural  and  very  human  desire  it  will  be  to  col- 
lect 'all  the  traffic  will  bear'?  Give  me  a  monopoly  of  a  Nation's 
power  plants  and  I  will  not  care  whose  foot  rocks  its  cradles, 
who  writes  its  songs  or  makes  its  laws.  The  cradles  and  the  songs 
will  not  interest  me  at  all;  and  as  for  the  laws,  I  will  write  my- 
self all  of  them  in  which  I  have  any  interest,  until  some  kind  of 
a  revolution  unseats  me  from  the  throne." 

183  This  loose  system  promises  to  make  trouble  later  on.  It  is 
said  that  in  the  case  of  many  of  the  streams  from  ten  to  twenty- 
five  times  the  amount  of  water  which  the  streams  carry  has  been 
"appropriated."  Without  regulation  of  appropriation  such  a  result 
was  inevitable. 


158  The  Conservation  Measures 

to  prevent  any  legislation  which  would  tend  to  protect 
the  public's  interests. 

Nevertheless,  as  early  as  1903,  a  bill  to  regulate  the 
appropriation  of  water  was  introduced.  Its  passage  was, 
however,  prevented.  A  similar  measure  was  introduced 
at  the  1905  session,  only  to  meet  defeat. 

At  the  1907  session,  hopelessly  dominated  by  the 
machine,  no  such  measure  was  introduced,  and  probably 
none  would  have  been  at  the  1909  session,  had  it  not  been 
for  an  attempt  made  by  the  special  interests  intent  upon 
securing  the  water  wealth  of  the  State,  to  involve  the 
State  in  active  opposition  to  the  Federal  Government's 
conservation  policies. 

In  carrying  out  these  policies,  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment had,  in  a  way,  been  able  to  protect  the  rights  of 
The  People  of  California  to  their  water  power.  This 
could  be  done,  however,  only  in  the  case  of  water  flow- 
ing through  Government  lands. 

Under  the  law,  the  Government  lands  within  the 
borders  of  the  State  are  held  by  the  Federal  Government, 
not  for  the  use  of  The  People  of  California  alone,  but  for 
the  use  of  The  People  of  the  entire  nation.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  physical  water  of  the  streams  within  the  boun- 
daries of  the  State,  is  State  property,  to  be  conserved  or 
dissipated  by  the  State.  Directly,  the  Government  could 
do  nothing  for  the  conservation  of  these  waters,  but  in- 
directly the  Government  could  do  much.  This  was  done 
through  the  Government's  control  of  the  Forest  Reserve. 

Many  of  the  most  valuable  water  rights  that  have 
fallen  into  private  hands  are  within  Government  Forest 
Reserves.  The  Federal  Government  could  not  regulate 


The  Conservation  Measures  159 

the  appropriation  and  taking  of  these  waters,  but  it  could 
prescribe  rules  for  the  use  of  the  Forest  Reserve  from 
which  the  water  was  taken.  This  was  done.  In  this 
way  the  Government  could  in  a  measure  conserve  the 
State's  water  wealth  until  The  People  of  California 
awoke  to  the  necessity  for  its  protection. 

This  policy  of  the  Federal  Government  interfered 
materially  with  the  purposes  of  the  private  interests  that 
were  intent  upon  securing  the  water  rights  away  from 
The  People.  At  the  1909  session,  therefore,  a  concurrent 
resolution 184  was  introduced,  which  in  effect  directed 
the  State  Attorney  General  to  defend  against  the  Federal 
Government,  the  special  interests  engaged  in  securing 
water  rights  in  Forest  Reserves. 


184  Senate  Concurrent  Resolution  No.  7,  Session  of  1909.  The 
Resolution  in  full  was  as  follows: 

"Whereas,  It  has  come  to  the  notice  of  the  Legislature,  that 
citizens  of  this  State,  engaged  in  lawful  occupations,  using,  in 
conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the  State  Constitution  and  stat- 
utes made  thereunder,  property  and  property  rights  owned  by  the 
State  and  by  the  people  of  the  State,  have  been  interfered  with 
in  said  use  by  persons,  who,  declaring  themselves  to  be  officials 
of  the  United  States,  have  asserted,  and  by  duress  have  exercised, 
rights  of  regulation  of  use,  and  of  taxation  of  use,  of  said  prop- 
erties of  the  State  while  being  lawfully  used  by  its  citizens;  and, 

"Whereas,  The  provision  of  the  Constitution  and  statutes  of 
this  State,  under  and  by  virtue  of  which  its  citizens  make  use  of 
their  common  property  aforesaid,  are  not  inconsistent  with  the 
Act  of  admission  of  the  State  into  the  United  States,  nor  incon- 
sistent with  any  other  act  or  acts  of  Congress. 

"Resolved,  By  the  Senate  and  the  Assembly  concurring,  that 
the  Attorney-General  of  this  State  be  and  is  hereby  authorized, 
empowered  and  directed  to  appear  in  behalf  of  the  State  in  any 
action  or  actions  brought  by  the  United  States  against  the  citizens 
of  this  State,  to  collect  taxes  from  them  for  their  use  of  property 
and  property  rights  owned  by  the  State  or  the  people  thereof,  or 
to  maintain  any  authority  or  right  of  regulation  of  use  by  citizens 
of  this  State  of  property  and  of  property  rights  owned  by  the  State 
or  by  the  people  thereof;  and  that  the  Attorney-General  is  further 
directed  by  proper  legal  proceeding  to  assert  and  maintain  the 
right  and  title  of  the  State  to  its  said  properties,  and  to  assert 
and  maintain  the  right  of  citizens  of  the  State  to  use  said  prop- 
erties free  of  interference  from  persons  claiming  to  be  officials  of 
the  United  States  and  thereby  to  be  authorized  and  empowered  to 
make  such  interference." 


160  The  Conservation  Measures 

The  purpose  of  this  resolution  was  exposed  by  the 
Sacramento  Bee. 

When  its  author,  Senator  E.  S.  Birdsall  of  Auburn, 
who  had  introduced  it  "by  request,"  understood  its  pur- 
port, he  withdrew  his  support,  and  the  resolution  was 
left  in  the  Judiciary  Committee  to  which  it  had  been 
referred. 

The  discussion  caused  by  the  introduction  of  this 
resolution  brought  prominently  before  the  Legislature 
the  necessity  for  proper  regulation  of  the  appropriation 
and  use  of  the  State's  water  wealth. 

Senator  Marshall  Black  of  Palo  Alto  accordingly 
introduced  a  bill 185  providing  for  such  regulation.  The 

185  Senate  Bill  1063,  Session  of  1909. 

The  measure  declared  all  water  flowing  in  known  or  defined 
channels,  whether  below  or  above  ground,  to  be  the  property  of 
the  State.  The  water  which  percolates  through  the  soil  was  de- 
clared to  be  the  property  of  the  person  owning  the  soil  through 
which  it  percolates. 

Riparian  rights  in  the  waters  of  the  streams  were  limited  to 
the  amount  of  water  necessary  for  the  beneficial  uses  of  the  ripa- 
rian owners.  This  water  could  be  used  only  to  a  reasonable  extent 
and  consistent  with  the  equal  use  thereof  by  all  others  entitled  to 
use  the  water.  The  surplus  was  required  to  be  turned  back  into 
the  stream. 

Subject  to  vested  right  therein  the  waters  of  any  stream  could 
be  appropriated  under  the  provisions  of  the  Act  for  any  beneficial 
public  or  private  use,  but  only  in  the  manner  in  which  the  meas- 
ure provided. 

For  carrying  out  the  purposes  of  the  measure,  a  board  of  four 
engineers  was  provided. 

A  person  or  corporation  wishing  to  appropriate  water  was  re- 
quired to  file  an  application  with  the  Board  of  Engineers  setting 
forth  the  quantity  of  water  desired,  the  stream  and  the  point 
thereof  from  which  it  was  to  be  taken,  and  the  purposes  for  which 
it  was  to  be  used.  The  engineers  after  due  publication  were  re- 
quired to  grant  or  reject  the  petition  in  conformity  with  the  regu- 
lations provided  in  the  Act. 

The  engineers  were  not  permitted  to  authorize  the  construction 
of  works  for  the  diversion  of  any  water  the  capacity  of  which  was 
in  excess  of  the  surplus  unappropriated  water  in  any  stream  nor 
could  any  permit  granted  affect  or  in  any  way  interfere  with 
previously  vested  rights. 

The  permit  had  to  show  the  amount  of  water  authorized  to  be 
appropriated,  for  what  purposes,  the  place  of  use,  the  means  by 
which  the  diversion  and  application  of  the  water  was  to  be  made, 
and  the  time  within  which  the  works  for  the  diversion  and  appli- 
cation thereof  shall  be  completed,  not  exceeding  a  reasonable  pe- 
riod to  be  fixed  by  the  Board. 

Violations  of  the  provisions  of  the  Act  were  made  misdemeanors. 


The  Conservation  Measures  161 

Black  bill  never  got  beyond  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Irrigation  to  which  it  was  referred. 

But  the  publicity  given  the  Black  bill  unquestionably 
had  much  to  do  with  arousing  the  public  to  the  necessity 
for  such  legislation.  The  1910  State  conventions  of  both 
the  Democratic  and  the  Republican  party  declared  for 
conservation  of  the  State's  water  wealth.  The  Repub- 
lican State  Central  Committee  appointed  a  special  com- 
mittee 186  to  draw  measures  to  that  end.  Conservation 
was  strongly  urged  in  Governor's  Johnson's  inaugural 
address.187 

As  a  result  of  all  these  influences,  at  the  1911  session, 
the  so-called  conservation  bills  took  high  place  as  "ad- 
ministration measures." 

These  measures  were  drawn  by  the  Conservation 
Committee  appointed  by  the  Republican  State  Central 
Committee,  of  which  Governor  Pardee  was  chairman 
and  Milton  T.  U'Ren,  secretary.  The  bills  were,  how- 
ever, worked  over  by  several  legislative  committees, 
numerous  amendments  being  adopted.  But  the  changes 
were  all  in  line  with  the  work  of  the  Conservation  Com- 
mittee, and  in  many  instances  were  suggested  by  Chair- 
man Pardee  and  his  associates. 

Governor,  Legislators  and  committeemen  thus  united 
to  provide  for  California  what  the  State  had  not  had  be- 
fore, effective  conservation  legislation.  The  field  was 
new;  the  work — to  meet  heretofore  unknown  conditions 

ise  The  committee  consisted  of  Former  Governor  George  C.  Par- 
dee,  chairman;  Francis  J.  Heney,  Wm.  Kent,  Chester  H.  Rowell, 
S.  C.  Graham,  Marshall  Black,  Assemblyman- elect  W.  C.  Clark, 
L.  L.  Dennett,  Harold  T.  Power,  Ralph  Bull,  Francis  Cuttle  and 
Milton  T.  U'Ren. 

187  See  Governor  Johnson's  inaugural  address   in   the  appendix. 

6 


1 62  The  Conservation  Measures 

— unprecedented ;  those  in  charge  of  the  bills  had  to  grope 
their  way.    But  they  had  two  ends  in  view: 

(1)  To  provide  the  means  for  learning  what  natural 
resources  there  are  in  California  subject  to  State  control. 

(2)  To  keep  these  natural  resources  from  being  mon- 
opolized and  exploited,  and  thereby  made  the  means  of 
extorting  unreasonable  returns  from  The  People. 

To  achieve  these  ends  three  measures  were  intro- 
duced, Assemblyman  Clark  having  charge  of  them  in 
the  Lower  House,  and  Senator  Black  in  the  upper. 

The  measures  were  Assembly  Bills  789,  735  and  788. 
I  give  them  in  the  order  of  their  importance.  There 
was,  of  course,  more  or  less  opposition  to  the  bills.  It 
cropped  up  in  the  matter  of  making  sufficient  appropria- 
tions to  insure  effective  work;  it  came  in  the  joint  meet- 
ing of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Irrigation  and  the  As- 
sembly Committee  on  Conservation,  held  expressly  to 
discuss  these  bills,  on  the  evening  of  February  7.  But 
Francis  J.  Heney,188  Governor  Pardee,  Chester  H.  Row- 
ell,  Congressman  William  Kent,  and  others  keenly  alive 
to  the  necessity  of  holding  the  State's  resources  for  de- 
velopment, and  preventing  their  sacrifice  by  exploitation, 
were  constantly  on  the  alert,  and  the  effectiveness  of  the 
measures  was  not  materially  impaired. 

And  while  on  this  phase  of  the  work,  it  is  not  out  of 
place  to  say  that  the  lobbyists  who  opposed  the  bills  were 
no  doubt  generously  paid  for  their  services.  But  the 
citizens  who  were  at  Sacramento  to  urge  the  measures' 

188  Mr.  Heney's  plea  for  conservation  that  night,  was  declared 
to  be  the  most  exhaustive  of  the  subject,  and  the  most  effective  of 
all  the  speeches  made  before  the  Legislature  or  Committees  of 
the  Legislature  during  the  session. 


The  Conservation  Measures  163 

passage,  not  only  received  nothing  for  their  work,  but 
paid  their  own  expenses. 

The  most  important  of  the  conservation  bills,  Assem- 
bly Bill  789,  provided  for  a  commission  to  list  the  natural 
resources  of  the  State,  to  ascertain  what  other  States  are 
doing  in  the  way  of  conservation,  and  to  determine  the 
best  methods  of  conserving  these  resources  to  The 
People. 

The  members  of  this  commission  will  receive  no 
salary.  Those  who  accept  the  commissionerships  will 
serve,  precisely  as  did  those  who  went  to  Sacramento  in 
the  interest  of  the  bill,  for  the  well-being  of  their  State 
alone. 

The  necessity  for  this  act  is  apparent.  The  exploiters 
of  the  State's  natural  resources  have,  at  enormous  ex- 
pense, gathered  much  data  of  the  State's  natural  re- 
sources. But  the  State  has  no  data  on  the  subject  in 
such  shape  that  it  can  be  used  effectively. 

In  coping  with  the  exploiters,  it  is  necessary  that  the 
State  have  information  to  enable  its  representatives  to  act 
intelligently.  Such  information  the  Conservation  Com- 
mission is  under  the  terms  of  Assembly  Bill  789  charged 
with  gathering. 

The  commission  is  authorized  to  provide  for  surveys 
and  such  other  work  as  may  be  deemed  necessary. 

To  enable  the  commission  to  carry  on  this  work, 
$100,000  is  appropriated.  So  important  was  this  work 
deemed  by  the  Legislature  that  the  appropriation  asked 
for  was  not  cut  down  by  either  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee  of  the  Assembly  or  the  Finance  Committee  of 
the  Senate. 


164 


The  Conservation  Measures 


Not  a  negative  vote  was  cast  against  the  bill  in  the 
Senate,  and  only  one  in  the  Assembly.189 

The  bill  that  was  thus  passed  by  practically  unanimous 
vote,  dealt  with  the  problem  of  permanent  conservation 
by  providing  means  for  comprehensive  work  covering  the 
entire  field  of  the  State's  natural  resources,  that  eventu- 
ally proper  and  accurate  regulations  and  restrictions  may 
be  secured  by  legislation. 

But  the  Legislature  was  confronted  with  an  immediate 
emergency,  namely  the  conservation  of  the  State's  water 
power.  Much  of  this  power  had  already  passed  into 
private  hands.  Unless  the  1911  Legislature  should  pass 
measures  for  the  conservation  of  such  power  as  remained 
unappropriated,  it  was  pointed  out,190  there  would  not,  by 
the  time  the  next  Legislature  convened,  be  any  unappro- 
priated water  power  left  in  California  to  be  conserved. 

To  meet  this  emergency  condition,  Assembly  Bill  735 
was  prepared. 

The  chief  purpose  of  this  measure  was  to  prevent 


189  That  of  Assemblyman  Polsley.  Twenty-seven  Senators  voted 
for  the  measure  and  50  Assemblymen. 

i»o  This  was  most  effectively  done  by  Chester  H.  Rowell  of 
Fresno,  before  the  Joint  meeting  of  Senate  and  Assembly  commit- 
tees, held  on  the  evening  of  February  1. 

Mr.  Rowell  showed  conclusively  that  In  California  we  have  per- 
manent necessity  for  conservation,  but  of  more  immediate  Impor- 
tance was  emergency  legislation  to  save  such  water  power  as 
has  not  as  yet  been  filed  upon.  Much  of  the  water  power  of  the 
State,  Mr.  Rowell  pointed  out,  has  been  grabbed;  the  rest  Is  being 
grabbed.  To  conserve  for  the  people  of  the  State  the  ungrabbed 
power,  It  was  imperative  that  the  Legislature  pass  laws  prescrib- 
ing under  what  conditions  Individuals  may  acquire  this  power. 
Unless  such  legislation  be  secured  at  the  1911  session,  Rowell 
contended,  there  would  be  no  water  power  left  to  conserve  by  the 
time  the  1913  Legislature  convened,  for  it  would  all  be  grabbed. 

The  question  of  making  a  general  inventory  of  the  resources 
of  the  State,  and  the  problem  of  conserving  them,  can  wait,  Rowell 
stated,  but  the  conservation  of  the  water  power  of  the  State  cannot 
wait. 


The  Conservation  Measures  165 

further  appropriation  of  water  in  perpetuity  for  the 
generation  of  electrical  power.191 

To  this  end,  under  the  terms  of  the  bill,  a  commission 
is  created,  to  consist  of  the  Governor,  the  State  Engineer,' 
and  three  commissioners  to  be  appointed  by  the  Governor. 

Persons  wishing  to  appropriate  water  for  electrical 
power  purposes  are  required  to  make  application  to  this 
commission.  The  commission  has  discretion  to  grant  or 
to  refuse  such  application.  But  in  no  case  can  the 
license  cover  a  period  longer  than  twenty-five  years. 

The  licensee,  however,  may,  at  the  expiration  of  the 
license,  secure  a  further  license,  at  the  discretion  of  the 
commission,  for  an  additional  period  not  to  exceed 
twenty-five  years.192 

ifli  Exception  from  this  provision  is  made  in  the  case  of  mu- 
nicipal corporations  and  irrigation  districts  where  the  power  is 
distributed  within  its  own  limits  and  used  for  purposes  subsidiary 
to  irrigation.  Exception  is  also  made  in  the  case  of  lighting  dis- 
tricts where  the  electricity  is  distributed  within  its  own  limits. 

192  The  principal  opposition  was  directed  to  this  twenty-flve- 
years  limit.  The  opponents  wanted  the  term  made  forty  years. 
The  friction  between  the  two  factions  had  full  play  at  the  joint 
meeting  of  the  Senate  and  Assembly  committees,  Feb.  7,  held  to 
consider  the  conservation  bills,  and  found  its  best  expression  in 
a  clash  of  wit  between  Governor  Pardee  and  Senator  Lewis  of 
Stockton. 

"Why,"  began  Lewis,  "do  you  limit  the  granting  of  water  power 
to  a  term  of  twenty-five  years?" 

"Because,"  replied  Pardee,  "capital  can  and  will,  and  does, 
profitably  invest  in  such  enterprises  on  the  twenty-five-year  basis. 
Twenty  years  would  be  better." 

Lewis  cited  a  case  in  which  a  corporation  had  not  paid  divi- 
dends in  thirty-five  years. 

"Then,"  declared  Dr.  Pardee,  "I  would  say  that  such  a  financial 
enterprise  was  moribund,  and  ought  to  be  buried." 

"Is  it  not  true,"  asked  Lewis,  "that  doctors  bury  many  live 
patients?" 

"Yes,"  came  back  the  doctor,  "and  expect  to  bury  many  more." 

"Don't  you  know,"  suggested  Lewis,  "there  is  a  law  before  this 
Legislature  to  put  doctors  out  of  business?" 

"The  doctors,"  replied  Pardee,  "can  stand  it  if  the  patients  can." 

Then  Pardee  continued  seriously,  stating  that  the  people  cannot 
take  care  of  all  the  financial  lame  ducks  by  legislation,  but  must 
consider  their  own  interests. 

"But  how  about  our  infant  industries?"  insisted  Lewis.  "Capi- 
tal must  be  encouraged  to  invest  in  our  power  sites." 

"Infant  industries,"  replied  Pardee,  "that  continue  infants  for 
twenty-five  years  are  scarcely  worth  while." 


166  The  Conservation  Measures 

The  measure  also  provides  for  a  nominal  charge  for 
the  use  of  the  water,  the  purpose  being  to  establish  the 
right  and  policy  of  the  State  to  make  such  charge. 

The  State  further  reserves  the  right  to  fix  fees  and 
charges  hereafter,  and  makes  the  same  applicable  to  all 
the  water  appropriated  under  the  act  hereafter.  The  at- 
tempt is  also  made  to  subject  appropriations  of  water, 
heretofore  made,  to  such  charges. 

When  Assembly  Bill  735  finally  came  to  vote,  not  a 
member  went  on  record  against  it.  Twenty-five  Senators 
voted  for  it  and  fifty-four  Assemblymen. 

Nevertheless,  there  was  much  covered  opposition  to 
the  provision  which  limited  the  term  of  grants  of  power 
rights  to  twenty-five  years. 

The  opposition  found  more  or  less  open  expression 
when  the  companion  measure,  Assembly  Bill  788,  came 
to  vote  in  the  Senate. 

This  measure  was  of  itself  comparatively  unimpor- 
tant. Its  purpose  was  to  amend  Section  1410  of  the  Civil 
Code  to  conform  with  the  provisions  of  Assembly  Bill 
735  in  the  matter  of  limiting  the  appropriation  of  water 
for  the  purposes  therein  set  forth  to  a  term  of  twenty- 
five  years. 

The  bill  passed  the  Assembly  without  a  vote  being  cast 
against  it,  sixty-one  Assemblymen  voting  in  the  affirma- 
tive.193 This  was  on  March  8.  The  measure  did  not 


193  The  Assembly  vote  on  Assembly  Bill  788  was: 
For  the  bill — Beatty,  Beckett,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Bishop,  Boh- 
nett,  Brown,  Butler,  Callaghan,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Cogs- 
well, Denegri,  Farwell,  Fitzgerald,  Flint,  Freeman,  Gerdes,  Griffin 
of  Modesto,  Hall,  Harlan,  Hayes,  Held,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw, 
Jasper,  Joel,  Judson,  Kehoe,  Kennedy,  Lamb,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles, 
Lyon  of  San  Francisco,  Malone,  March,  McDonald,  McGowen,  Men- 
denhall,  Mott,  Mullally,  Nolan,  Polsley,  Preisker,  Rimlinger,  Rodgers 


The  Conservation  Measures  167 

come  to  a  vote  in  the  Senate,  however,  until  March  23, 
the  Thursday  before  adjournment.  Then,  on  its  final 
passage,  Senator  Curtin  moved  to  amend  to  make  the 
term  forty  instead  of  twenty-five  years. 

The  fight  which  ensued  between  the  two  factions  was 
heated  while  it  lasted.  At  Curtin's  request,  the  Senate 
doors  were  locked,  and  absentee  members  were  brought 
in  by  the  sergeant-at-arms.  In  this  way  the  attendance 
of  thirty-nine  of  the  forty  Senators  was  secured. 

A  scene  of  great  confusion  followed.  Senator  John  J. 
Cassidy  of  San  Francisco,  connected  with  the  United 
Railroads,  the  traction  monopoly  of  that  city,  was  active 
in  the  attempt  to  have  the  proposed  amendment  adopted. 
Senator  Finn,  also  of  San  Francisco,  voted  first  against 
the  proposed  amendment,  and  then  for  it.  Senator 
Beban,  another  San  Francisco  member,  did  the  same. 

But  in  spite  of  these  efforts,  the  amendment  was  de- 
feated by  a  vote  of  17  to  20194  This  was  the  test  vote  in 
the  Senate  on  conservation. 

After  the  defeat  of  the  Curtin  amendment,  the  bill  was 
passed  by  a  vote  of  31  to  O.195 

Principally  because  of  the  opposition  to  limiting  the 

of    San    Francisco,    Rogers    of    Alameda,    Rosendale,    Rutherford, 
Sbragia,    Slater,    Smith,    Sutherland,    Telfer,    Tibbits,   Walker,   Wil- 
liams,   Wilson,    Wyllie,    Young — 61. 
Against  the  bill — None. 

194  The  vote  on  Curtin's  amendment  was  as  follows: 

For  the  amendment — Avey,  Beban,  Bills,  Boynton,  Caminetti, 
Cassidy,  Curtin,  Finn,  Hans,  Juilliard,  Larkins,  Martinelli,  Rose- 
berry,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Wolfe  and  Wright — 17. 

Against  the  amendment — Bell,  Birdsall,  Black,  Bryant,  Burnett, 
Cutten,  Estudillo,  Gates,  Hare,  Hewitt,  Holohan,  Hurd,  Lewis, 
Regan,  Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Thompson,  Tyrrell  and  Walker 
—20. 

195  The  vote  by  which  Assembly  Bill  788  passed  the  Senate  was 
as  follows: 

For  the  bill — Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boynton, 
Bryant,  Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cassidy,  Cutten,  Finn,  Gates, 


1 68  The  Conservation  Measures 

grants  of  water-power  rights  to  twenty-five-years  terms, 
the  Conservation  amendment  (Assembly  Amendment  No. 
23)  was  withdrawn  by  its  author,  Assemblyman  Clark  of 
Oakland. 

This  amendment  declared  all  water  within  the  State 
of  California  to  be  the  property  of  The  People  of  the 
State ;  declared  the  use  of  all  water  now  appropriated,  or 
that  may  be  hereafter  appropriated,  was  to  be  a  public 
use  and  subject  to  the  regulation  and  control  of  the  State 
in  the  manner  prescribed  by  law;  limited  the  grants  of 
such  water  to  twenty-five  years. 

For  the  adoption  of  this  amendment  by  the  Senate, 
twenty-seven  votes  in  that  body  were  required.  It  is 
very  doubtful  if  that  number  of  Senators  would  have 
voted  for  it.  Assemblyman  Clark,  because  of  such  op- 
position and  difference  of  opinion  on  the  details  of  the 
amendment  that  developed  among  the  Progressives  them- 
selves, finally  withdrew  the  measure. 

But  this  conservation  amendment  merely  becomes 
part  of  the  left-over  work  of  the  1911  session,  for  the 
1913  session  to  complete.  With  information  on  the 
State's  natural  resources  which  was  not  available  in  1911, 
the  1913  Legislature  will  be  able  to  act  upon  this,  or  a 
similar  amendment,  intelligently.196 

Hans,   Hewitt,    Holohan,    Hurd,    Juilliard,    Lewis,    Martinelli,    Rose- 
berry,    Rush,    Shanahan,    Stetson,    Strobridge,    Thompson,    Walker, 
Wolfe,  and  Wright— 31. 
Against  the  bill — None. 

i»«  In  addition  to  these  principal  conservation  measures,  a 
number  of  minor  conservation  bills  dealing  with  conditions  at 
Owen's  Lake  and  for  conservation  of  the  flow  of  artesian  water 
were  introduced  and  became  laws. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
MORAL  ISSUES. 

Anti-Prise  Fight  Bill  and  Measures  to  Prevent  the  Ex- 
ploitation of  the  Social  Evil  Defeated — Anti-Slot 
Machine  Law  Enacted. 

When,  in  the  latter  part  of  Janauary,  1911,  Tom  Wil- 
liams, the  race  track  man,  appeared  at  Sacramento  to  do 
his  part  in  opposing  the  passage  of  the  Walker- Young 
Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill,  Buell 19T  made  the  incident 
subject  of  one  of  his  striking  cartoons.  The  cartoon 
appeared  in  the  Sacramento  Bee  of  January  24.  It  was 
in  two  parts.  The  first  pictured  the  arrival  of  Williams 
at  Sacramento  in  1909 ;  the  second,  Mr.  Williams'  arrival 
in  1911. 

The  1909  picture  showed  Williams  surrounded  by  his 
enthusiastic  supporters  and  admirers,  in  a  sort  of  I-own- 
the-earth  pose. 

The  other  showed  Williams'  arrival  in  1911,  the 
backs  of  the  crowd  upon  him,  and  only  former  Senator 
Frank  Leavitt  and  Senator  Eddie  Wolfe  to  greet  him. 
Wolfe  was  pictured  as  guiding  Williams  about,  and 
Leavitt  as  bringing  up  the  rear. 

i9r  H.  V.  Buell's  cartoons  were  one  of  the  features  of  the  1911  \ 
session.  Unlike  many  cartoonists,  Buell  does  not  flatter  rogrues  to 
keep  his  pension.  No  pleasing  presentation  of  knaves  in  high 
places  for  him.  His  cartoons  mean  something.  The  Buell  car- 
toons suggested  by  the  fight  for  a  practical  Local  Option  law, 
had  much  to  do  with  the  passage  of  that  measure. 


170  Moral  Issues 

The  assurance  shown  in  the  first  half  of  the  cartoon 
was  gone  from  Mr.  Williams.  He  was  pictured  as  say- 
ing, "It's  chilly  here." 

And  it  was  chilly  at  Sacramento  in  1911  for  any  who 
opposed  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  measures,  as  chilly 
as  it  had  been  four  years  before  for  those  who  advocated 
the  passage  of  such  measures.198  Columns  of  description 
could  not  have  given  a  better  idea  of  the  changed  order 
at  Sacramento  than  this  Buell  cartoon.  The  changed 
order  had  brought  to  Sacramento  very  different  faces 
than  had  appeared  at  other  sessions. 

At  former  sessions  the  writer  has,  while  the  House 
was  in  session,  seen  prostitutes  in  the  chairs  in  the  Senate 
and  Assembly  chambers  back  of  the  desks  of  the  mem- 
bers, who  sat  there  for  hours,  arrogantly  assured  of  their 
position.  But  nothing  of  this  character  occurred  at  the 
1911  session.  The  floor  was  kept  cleared  of  objection- 
able characters — male  as  well  as  female. 

There  was  little  or  no  drunkenness.  Even  at  the 
hotels  and  cafes  at  meal  time  it  was  the  exception  to  see 
intoxicants  on  the  tables.199  The  noisy  meal-time  gather- 

i»8  Up  to  two  years  ago  so  effective  was  the  machine's  opposi- 
tion to  anti-racetrack  gambling  legislation  that  when  in  1907  the 
present  Railroad  Commissioner,  John  Eshleman,  then  an  Assembly- 
man, had  the  temerity  to  introduce  and  support  an  anti-racetrack 
gambling  bill,  representatives  of  racetrack  gambling  in  the  Senate 
intimated  to  him  that  unless  he  ceased  his  activities  against  them, 
his  bills  would  be  held  up.  And  at  that  session  only  one  bill  intro- 
duced by  Mr.  Eshleman  was  permitted  to  pass. 

Eshleman  was  from  Berkeley,  and  in  the  natural  order  of 
things  would  have  handled  the  University  appropriation  bills. 
But  because  of  Eshleman's  attitude  on  racetrack  gambling,  and 
the  firmness  of  his  determination  to  stand  by  his  anti-racetrack 
gambling  bill,  the  University  bills  were  taken  out  of  his  hands 
lest  the  firmly  entrenched  gambling  interests  in  the  Legislature,  in 
retaliation,  defeat  the  University  appropriations. 

199  Senator  Bell  of  Pasadena  has  an  ingenious  explanation  for 
the  absence  of  drunkenness  at  the  1911  session.  Formerly,  the 
only  meeting  placeg  for  strangers  in  Sacramento  were  the  lobbies 


Moral  Issues  171 

ings  which  have  been  characteristic  of  other  sessions 
were  entirely  lacking. 

The  Legislature  was  prepared  to  pass  as  stringent  an 
Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  law  as  those  charged  with  its 
enforcement  might  ask.  The  passage  of  a  Local  Option 
law  was  accomplished  with  greater  difficulty.  But  an  ef- 
fective Local  Option  law  in  the  end  went  on  the  statute 
books.  This  was  followed  by  the  passage  of  an  anti-slot 
machine  law,  which  not  only  outlawed  slot  machines,  but 
dice  devices  which  were  intended  to  take  the  place  of  slot 
machines.  And,  in  addition,  the  way  was  opened  for 
effective  legislation  to  reach  the  exploiters  of  the  social 
evil,  who  are  becoming  a  powerful  factor  in  the  govern- 
ment of  our  large  cities. 

In  the  matter  of  anti-prize  fight  legislation,  the  pro- 
ponents and  opponents  carried  on  a  contest  from  the 
opening  of  the  session  until  the  gavels  fell,  without 
either  side  making  headway. 

Finn  introduced  a  bill  20°  in  the  Senate,  the  passage  of 
which  would  have  made  it  difficult  if  not  impossible  for 
the  Governor  to  interfere  with  prize  fighting  in  future, 
as  Governor  Gillett  had  done  in  the  Jeffries-Johnson 
affair.  But  Finn's  bill,  although  favorably  reported  by 

of  the  several  hotels.  These  lobbies  are  small,  but  the  bar-rooms 
of  the  establishments  are  comparatively  large,  and  of  easy  access 
from  the  lobbies.  The  bar-rooms  were  in  effect,  from  necessity, 
the  meeting  places. 

But  after  the  1909  session,  the  Sacramento  Hotel  was  com- 
pleted. The  feature  of  this  hotel  is  its  lobby.  The  bar-room, 
instead  of  being1  easy  of  access,  is  on  another  floor.  The  Sacra- 
mento Hotel  lobby  soon  became  the  meeting  place  of  members  of 
the  Legislature,  and  those  who  had  business  with  the  members. 
Visits  to  the  bar-room  were  the  rare  exception. 

200  Senate  Bill  160. 


172  Moral  Issues 

the  Senate  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  never  got  be- 
yond the  Senate. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  anti-Prize  Fight  bill  met  de- 
feat in  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Public  Morals. 

The  measure  which  had  the  support  of  the  opponents 
of  prize  fighting  was  introduced  by  Hinshaw  of  Los 
Angeles. 

Hinshaw  was  not  on  the  Public  Morals  Committee. 
But  Sbragia  was,  as  was  Rogers  of  Alameda. 

Both  these  gentlemen  introduced  anti-Prize  Fight  bills. 

It  soon  became  evident  to  the  proponents  of  anti- 
Prize  Fight  legislation  that  the  only  way  to  get  an  anti- 
Prize  Fight  measure  reported  out  of  the  Public  Morals 
Committee  was  to  accept  features  of  the  Sbragia  and  the 
Rogers  bills.  This  was  not  deemed  satisfactory.  A  dead- 
lock ensued  which  lasted  until  March  26,  the  day  before 
adjournment,  when  all  three  of  the  anti-Prize  Fight 
measures  were  reported  out  of  the  committee  without 
recommendation.  This  meant  their  death  on  the  files. 
None  of  them  ever  came  to  vote. 

The  proponents  of  anti-Prize  Fight  legislation  made 
the  serious  mistake  of  not  introducing  their  measure  in 
the  Senate  as  well  as  in  the  Assembly,  and  making  a 
fight  for  it  in  both  houses.  Not  a  measure  of  this  kind 
has  become  a  law  without  a  fight,  and  a  hard  and  bitter 
fight  at  that.  The  promoters  engaged  in  the  exploita- 
tion of  the  sports  have  enormous  gains  at  stake  and  will 
stop  at  nothing  to  hold  them.  This  was  the  experience 
in  the  fight  for  legislation  to  prevent  the  prostitution  of 
horse  racing.  Effective  anti-Prize  Fight  legislation  will 
come  only  after  a  similar  contest. 


Moral  Issues  173 

Another  measure  which  may  be  regarded  as  an  open- 
ing wedge  to  compel  most  desirable  legislation  was  the 
Wyllie  bill,  which  in  effect  outlawed  property  used  in  the 
promotion  of  prostitution.201 

The  measure  was  by  no  means  an  innovation.  A  law 
containing  all  the  features  of  the  Wyllie  bill  is  on  the 
Iowa  statute  books,  and  is  endorsed  by  Iowa  officials  as 
practicable  and  workable.202  The  bill  had  the  endorse- 
ment and  support  of  men  of  the  type  of  Guy  Eddie,  City 
Prosecutor  of  Los  Angeles. 

Mr.  Eddie  made  a  trip  from  Los  Angeles  to  urge 
before  the  Assembly  Public  Morals  Committee,  to  which 
the  measure  had  been  referred,  that  favorable  action  be 
taken  on  the  measure. 

Chief  of  Police  Sebastian  of  Los  Angeles,  in  a  letter 
to  Police  Commissioner  John  Topham  of  that  city,  held 
that  the  abolishment  of  the  red  light  district  in  Los 
Angeles  had  proved  most  satisfactory  and  made  it  easier 
for  the  police  to  deal  with  the  problem.203  Sebastian's 
letter  was  read  before  the  committee. 

201  Assembly   Bill   1014,   an   act   to   enjoin   and   abate   houses   of 
lewdness,   assignation  and  prostitution,   to  declare  the  same  to  be 
nuisances,   to  enjoin  the  person  or  persons  who  conduct  or  main- 
tain the  same,   and  the  owner  or  agent  of  any  building  used  for 
such  purposes. 

202  Former  Attorney-General  of  Iowa,  H.  "W.  Beyers,  telegraphed 
Assemblyman   Wyllie   regarding   the   Iowa  law   as   follows: 

"Iowa's  red  light  injunction  law  most  effective  measure  for 
dealing  with  social  evil  ever  enacted.  Under  it,  the  business  is 
rapidly  disappearing,  without  injustice  to  a  single  property  holder." 

203  Chief  Sebastian's  letter  was  as  follows: 

"Mr.   John   Topham,  <<Los  Angeles,  Cal.,  2-25-11. 

"Police   Commissioner,    Los   Angeles. 
"Dear   Sir: 

"Regarding  a  comparison  of  crime  conditions  and  prostitution, 
existing  when  we  had  a  'District'  and  now,  I  beg  to  state,  it  will 
take  a  few  days  to  compile  this  data,  meanwhile  I  give  in  sub- 
stance my  opinion. 

"It  is  necessary  now  to  make  many  arrests  of  prostitutes  where 


174  Moral  Issues 

Dr.  David  Starr  Jordan,  President  of  Stanford  Uni- 
versity,204 wrote,  strongly  urging  such  legislation. 

In  view  of  this  support  of  earnest  men,  who  have 
approached  the  problem  as  students,  public  prosecutors 

actual  proof  of  money  passing,  etc.,  is  necessary  to  convict,  where- 
as if  the  laws  were  amended  as  they  should  be,  so  that  we  could 
arrest  for  mere  soliciting:,  the  number  of  arrests  would  soon  be  less. 

"But,  conditions  in  general,  as  to  prostitution  are  much  better 
now  than  when  we  had  a  District,  because  the  'mack,'  the  white 
slave  dealer,  the  'cadet,'  and  the  dealer  in  foreign  prostitutes,  and 
the  leeches  that  follow  and  hang  on  about  a  District  living  off 
the  earnings  of  prostitutes  and  their  ilk,  are  all  'out  of  business' 
now. 

"Los  Angeles  is,  under  this  administration,  much  cleaner  from 
prostitution  and  gambling  and  all  other  crimes  of  these  natures, 
than  it  has  ever  been  before  in  my  knowledge  of  the  city.  With 
the  proper  co-operation  from  the  District  Attorney's  office,  we 
would  soon  have  it  the  cleanest  city  in  America. 

"To  the  question,  'Does  segregation  segregate?'  I  will  positively 
answer,  'It  does  not.' 

"Respectfully, 

"(Signed)   C.  E.  SEBASTIAN, 

"Chief   of  Police." 

204  Dr.  Jordan's  statement,  which  was  read  before  the  Assem- 
bly Public  Morals  Committee,  was  in  full  as  follows: 
"LELAND  STANFORD  JR.  UNIVERSITY. 
"Office  of   the   President. 

"Stanford    University,    Cal. 

"There  is  no  more  important  matter  to  come  before  civilized  na- 
tions than  that  of  the  absolute  extermination  of  the  red  light  dis- 
tricts of  our  cities.  This  is  not  a  question  of  morals,  primarily. 
It  is  that  of  self-protection  of  civilization  itself.  Practically  every 
prostitute,  the  world  over,  male  or  female,  is  the  victim  of  one 
or  the  other  or  both  of  two  slow-maturing  diseases  caused  by 
the  presence  of  minute  but  deadly  plants  in  the  blood  tissues. 
These  maladies  constitute  the  Red  Plague,  terrible  to  men,  horrible 
beyond  suggestion  to  women  and  children.  The  vilest  of  these 
two  diseases  may  be  communicated  through  towels,  drinking  cups 
and  the  like  to  people  wholly  innocent.  With  the  one,  children  may 
be  infected  at  birth.  The  other  is  the  chief  cause  of  blindness, 
of  sterility,  and  of  many  other  ills. 

"It  is  necessary  to  have  these  maladies  treated  as  other  In- 
fectious diseases  are  treated,  those  suffering  from  them  to  be 
segregated  and  sent  to  hospitals  for  such  cure  or  palliation  as 
medical  science  may  find  possible.  Medical  inspection  of  houses 
of  ill-fame  is  a  dangerous  farce.  It  seems  to  give  a  guaranty  of 
immunity  when  no  immunity  exists.  Such  inspection  can  detect 
superficial  symptoms  only  and  to  trust  to  it  is  to  license  the 
destruction  of  new  victims.  The  great  and  unanswerable  argument 
against  the  saloon  as  we  now  know  it,  is  its  alliance  with  the 
social  evil,  the  fact  that  it  is  the  open  door  to  the  red  light  district. 

"Thus  far  the  only  safety  in  dealing  with  the  plague  is  to  abol- 
ish the  plague  spots,  to  destroy  the  centers  of  infection.  To  deal 
with  the  Red  Plague  we  must  destroy  the  houses  of  prostitution 
and  send  their  inmates  to  the  hospital.  To  abolish  these  houses, 
the  only  sure  way  is  to  attack  their  owners.  To  punish  the  in- 


Moral  Issues  175 

and  police  executives,  the  statement  that  the  Wyllie  bill 
was  a  "crank  measure"  does  not  hold  good. 

The  Public  Morals  Committee  apparently  held  to  this 
view,  for  after  several  hearings,  at  which  representative 
men  from  all  parts  of  the  State  appeared  to  urge  its 
passage,  the  committee  referred  the  measure  back  to  the 
Assembly  with  the  recommendation  that  it  do  pass. 

In  the  Assembly  the  measure  was  amended  on  second 
reading,  which  necessitated  its  being  reprinted. 

This  resulted  in  delay.  On  March  16  the  bill  had 
not  been  brought  to  final  vote.  On  that  day,  Assembly- 
man George  Fitzgerald  of  Alameda  moved  that  the  bill 
be  re-referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee.  The  motion 
prevailed. 

Wyllie,  author  of  the  bill,  protested  that  the  chair 
had  not  recognized  him  to  speak  on  the  motion,  but  the 
ruling  was  made  that  the  point  was  not  well  taken. 

Speaker  pro  tem.  Cattell  was  in  the  chair.  The  inci- 
dent led  to  some  excitement.  Wyllie  appealed  from  the 
decision,  but  lost  again,  the  Assembly  sustaining  the 
Speaker.  The  measure  went  to  the  Judiciary  Committee. 

At  the  late  date  on  which  this  action  was  taken,  this 

mates  serves  no  purpose.  These  live  in  eternal  torment  already. 
It  is  understood  that  the  present  Iowa  law  against  houses  of  ill- 
fame,  whereby  the  owner  of  such  house  is  held  immediately  and 
rigidly  responsible,  has  proved  effective.  If  so,  the  sooner  we 
have  it  in  California  and  everywhere  else  throughout  the  United 
States  the  better.  Surely  the  decent  people,  not  engaged  in  the 
white  slave  traffic,  the  men  who  love  their  wives  and  children 
and  who  would  protect  them  from  the  vilest  of  diseases,  far  out- 
number those  who  are  making  money  out  of  crime.  Every  move 
toward  the  suppression  of  the  Red  Plague  makes  the  world  better 
and  safer  for  every  man  and  woman.  The  whole  moral  strength 
of  California  should  be  on  the  side  of  every  efficient  measure  work- 
ing towards  making  this  a  clean  State. 

"Very  truly  yours, 

"(Signed)   DAVID  S.   JORDAN. 

C." 
"Dictated.     Signed  in  Dr.  Jordan's  absence." 


176 


Moral  Issues 


meant  the  defeat  of  the  bill.  Wyllie's  red-light  district 
measure  was  not  heard  from  again.205 

Another  measure,  Assembly  Constitutional  Amend- 
ment No.  13,  striking  at  the  same  evil,  was  introduced 
in  the  lower  House  by  Assemblyman  Polsley.  This  pro- 
posed amendment206  prohibited  the  employment  of  women 
in  any  saloon  or  other  place  where  intoxicating  liquors 
or  intoxicating  drugs  are  sold.  Although  a  majority  of 
the  Assembly  voted  for  the  amendment,  it  failed  to  re- 
ceive the  fifty-four  votes  necessary  for  its  submission  to 
the  people.  It  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  46  to  28. 

The  defeat  of  such  measures  as  the  Wyllie  bill  and 

205  The    persistency   and    care   with   which    such   measures    are 
watched  by  the  exploiters  of  prostitution  is  scarcely  believable. 

At  the  last  session,  for  example,  Assemblyman  Polsley  intro- 
duced a  measure  to  regulate  the  dance  hall  evil.  Within  twenty- 
four  hours  he  had  been  visited  by  a  State  Senator  and  an  Assembly- 
man— both  from  San  Francisco — and  urged  to  withdraw  the  meas- 
ure. He  refused.  He  would  not  even  promise  not  to  call  the 
measure  up  during  the  absence  of  the  Assemblyman.  This  last 
was  serious  for  the  San  Francisco  member.  Lest  Polsley  call  the 
bill  up,  the  San  Franciscan  took  care  to  be  present  when  Polsley 
was  in  the  Assembly  Chamber.  In  this  way  Polsley  was  able  to 
compel  the  San  Franciscan's  attendance  much  against  that  gentle- 
man's inclination. 

206  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment  No.   13   provided   that: 
No  person  shall,  on  account  of  sex,   be  disqualified  from   entering 
upon,    or   pursuing   any   lawful   business,    vocation,    or    profession: 
provided,    however,    that   the    selling,    or   handling,    by   women,    of 
intoxicating  liquors,  or  the  presence  of  woman  in  any  capacity,  or 
at  all,  in  a  saloon,  hall,  theatre,  or  other  place  where  intoxicating 
liquors,  or  intoxicating  drugs,  are  sold,  drank,  or  given  away,  shall 
not  be  considered  a  lawful  business,  vocation,  or  profession,  within 
the  meaning  of  this  section. 

The  amendment  was  defeated  by  the  following  vote: 
For  the  Amendment — Beckett,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Bishop,  Bliss, 
Bohnett,  Brown,  Butler,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Cogswell,  Crosby, 
Farwell,  Freeman,  Griffln  of  Modesto,  Guill,  Hall,  Hamilton,  Harlan, 
Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jasper,  Jones,  Judson,  Kehoe,  Lamb, 
Lynch,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco,  Malone,  McGowen,  Mendenhall, 
Mott,  Preisker,  Randall,  Rutherford,  Smith,  Stuckenbruck,  Suther- 
land, Telfer,  Tibbits,  Williams,  Wilson.  Wyllie,  Young — 46. 

Against  the  Amendment — Beatty,  Callaghan,  Cronin,  Cunning- 
ham, Denegri,  Feeley,  Fitzgerald,  Flint.  Gaylord,  Gerdes,  Hayes, 
Joel,  Kennedy,  Maher,  March,  McDonald,  Mullally,  Nolan,  Polsley, 
Rimlinger,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco,  Rogers  of  Alameda,  Rosen- 
dale,  Sbragia,  Schmitt,  Slater,  Stevenot  and  "Walsh — 28. 


Moral  Issues  177 

the  Polsley  amendment  may  be  ascribed  to  three  prin- 
cipal causes: 

( 1 )  The  apathy  of  the  General  Public,  due  to  ignor- 
ance of  the  extent  and  consequences  of  the  evil  aimed 
at.207 

(2)  The  enormous  gains  of  the  exploiters  of  the 
social  evil,  which  makes  it  worth  their  while  to  cloud  the 
issue  by  inspired  newspaper  articles,  and  in  other  ways 
to  go  to  great  pains  and  expense  to  defeat  such  legis- 
lation.208 

(3)  The  inability  of  the  average  member  of  the 
Legislature,  in  the  face  of  the  enormous  amount  of  work 
thrust  upon  him,  to  get  at  the  bottom  of  this  question,  in 
which  the  public  apparently  takes  little  interest. 

It  is  a  question  of  racetrack  gambling  over  again. 
For  years  the  opponents  of  Racetrack  Gambling  legis- 
lation arrogantly  controlled  the  Legislature  at  every  point 
where  measures  affecting  public  morals  could  be  heard. 

But  once  the  public  was  informed  of  the  enormity  of 
the  evils  of  racetrack  gambling,  the  exploiters  of  the 
race  course  went  down  to  defeat. 

Once  the  evils  aimed  at  in  the  Wyllie  bill  and  the 
Polsley  amendment  are  understood,  such  measures  can 

207  See  Bulletin  of  the   State   Board   of  Health  for  May,   1910; 
and  Report  of  Transactions  of  the   San  Francisco  Commonwealth 
Club  for  May,  1911.     The  first  of  these  documents  may  be  had  by 
addressing    the    State    Board    of    Health    at    Sacramento,    and    the 
second   by  sending  to   the   secretary  of  the   Commonwealth   Club, 
First  National  Bank  Building,  San  Francisco. 

208  Dr.    Rosenstirn   stated  before  the    San    Francisco    Common- 
wealth Club   that  through   exploiting  the   earnings   of  unfortunate 
women,  some  men  have,  he  believed,  a  weekly  income  of  from  $2000 
to  $3000,   from  properties  not  worth  more  than  $25,000  or  $30,000. 
This  is  approximately  10  per  cent,  a  week  returns  on  the  invest- 
ment,  more  than  500  per  cent,   a  year.     The  figures  are  probably 
conservative. 


178  Moral  Issues 

not  be  defeated.  They  would  not,  probably,  have  been 
defeated  at  the  1911  session  had  they  been  given  the 
prominence  their  importance  warranted. 

Along  the  same  line  was  a  resolution  introduced  by 
Assemblyman  Joel  of  San  Francisco,  calling  for  a  legis- 
lative committee  to  investigate  conditions  in  that  city 
due  to  the  alleged  incompetence  or  corruption  of  the  San 
Francisco  Police  Department. 

If  such  a  committee  could  be  legally  appointed,  and 
be  made  up  of  men  who  are  not  financially  interested, 
directly  or  indirectly,  in  the  evils  sought  to  be  remedied, 
much  good  could  be  accomplished,  not  only  for  San 
Francisco  but  for  the  entire  State.  Joel's  resolution, 
however,  was  not  adopted. 

The  opponents  of  anti-Slot  Machine  legislation  found 
themselves  at  the  1911  session  where  the  race-track 
gamblers  found  themselves  in  1909,  and  where  the  ex- 
ploiters of  the  social  evil  must  sooner  or  later  find  them- 
selves. The  Public,  long  oblivious  to  the  slot-machine 
evils,  was  at  last  aroused  to  the  menace.  In  addition  to 
this  the  cold-blooded  dishonesty  of  the  devices  was  estab- 
lished beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt. 

The  anti-Slot  Machine  bill  was  introduced  in  the  As- 
sembly by  Kennedy  of  San  Francisco. 

The  charge  was  made  that  the  opponents  of  the 
measure  had  raised  $5000  to  defeat  it.  But  however  this 
may  be,  the  bill  passed  the  Assembly  by  a  vote  of  51 
to  6.209 

209  The  vote  by  which  the  Anti-Slot  Machine  bill  passed  the 
Assembly  was  as  follows: 

For  the  bill — Beckett,  Benedict,  Binnink,  Bliss,  Bohnett,  Brown, 
Butler,  Callaghan,  Chandler,  Clark,  Cronin,  Crosby,  Farwell,  Fitz- 
g-erald,  Flint,  Freeman,  Gaylord,  Griffin  of  Modesto,  Guill,  Hamilton, 


Moral  Issues  179 

Rumors  reached  the  capital  that  if  the  measure  be- 
came a  law,  dice  devices  would  be  substituted  for  slot 
machines.  The  bill  was  accordingly  amended  to  include 
dice  devices. 

When  the  measure  came  to  vote  in  the  Senate,  Senator 
Bell  read  from  advertising  pamphlets  sent  out  by  the 
Mills  Novelty  Company  of  Chicago  and  by  the  Caille 
Brothers  Company  of  Detroit.  These  companies  are  man- 
ufacturers of  slot  machines.  The  advertisements  showed 
to  those  interested  in  operating  slot  machines  how  easily 
the  machines  could  be  "fixed"  to  return  as  much  or  as 
little  to  the  player  as  the  owner  or  lessee  saw  fit.210 

The  reading  of  these  advertisements  created  a  de- 

Held,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jasper,  Jones,  Judson,  Kehoe,  Ken- 
nedy, Lamb,  Lynch,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco, 
Malone,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Polsley,  Preisker,  Randall,  Rogers  of 
Alameda,  Rosendale,  Rutherford,  Slater,  Smith,  Stevenot,  Telfer, 
Tibbits,  Williams,  Wilson,  Wyllie,  Young— 51. 

Against  the  bill — Cunningham,  Feeley,  Mullally,  Nolan,  Rim- 
linger  and  Sbragia — 6. 

210  Some  of  the  quotations  from  the  pamphlets  are  worth  pre- 
serving. The  following  are  fair  examples: 

From  pamphlet  headed  "Instructions  for  the  Dewey  and  Chicago 
Machines,"  issued  by  the  Mills  Novelty  Company,  only  manufac- 
turers of  the  original  and  genuine  Mills  Coin  Operating  Machines, 
11-23  South  Jefferson  Street,  Chicago,  111.  "To  Increase  Percent- 
age— Bring  plugs  No.  115  B  to  an  erect  position  on  wheel  No.  115, 
using  hook  or  finger  to  bring  them  into  position.  Fasten  plug  by 
using  screw  found  in  small  envelope  marked  'Plug  Screws.'  Figures 
on  wheel  indicate  amount  of  prize  and  location  of  plugs.  In  order 
to  turn  wheel  No.  115,  when  this  is  being  done,  hold  up  on  rod 
No.  96  and  pull  handle  down  to  about  one  inch  from  handle  stop 
on  front  of  case." 

From  catalog  509,  The  Caille  Brothers  Company,  Inc.,  Detroit, 
Mich.,  the  catalog  being  labeled  "Caille  automatic  money-paying 
machine  and  trade  stimulating  machines:" 

Page  5.  "Don't  overlook  the  Special  automatic  percentage  de- 
vice embodied  in  the  Eclipse.  It's  a  winner.  It  makes  the  machine 
very  'liberal'  or  as  'strong'  as  desired." 

Page  7.  "The  automatic  percentage  arrangement  of  the  Eclipse 
makes  this  combination  appeal  to  many.  When  'two-for-one'  colors 
are  played,  any  of  the  big  colors  are  all  open,  but  plug  themselves 
automatically  when  played.  It's  a  convincing  argument." 

Page  11.  "The  plugging  or  percentage  system  is  operated  by 
simply  turning  a  lever.  Open,  it  will  'rake  off'  25  per  cent.,  and 
closed,  it  will  'rake  off'  50  per  cent.  Cabinet  of  quartered  oak  or 


180  Moral  Issues 

cided  sensation  in  the  Senate.  None,  after  the  exposure, 
had  the  courage  to  vote  against  the  bill.  The  measure 
passed  the  Senate  without  a  vote  being  cast  against  it. 

The  advertising  pamphlets  were  destined  to  play  a 
further  part  in  the  campaign  against  slot  machines. 

Having  lost  in  the  Legislature,  the  slot-machine  people 
appealed  to  Governor  Johnson  to  veto  the  bill. 

Governor  Johnson  listened  to  them  patiently. 

When  they  had  done,  he  handed  them  the  Caille  and 
the  Mills  Novelty  Company's  circulars. 

"What  have  you  to  say  to  these  circulars,  gentlemen  ?" 
asked  the  Governor. 

The  gentlemen  had  nothing  to  say. 

Governor  Johnson  signed  the  bill. 


There  has  been  more  or  less  talk  of  a  reaction  in 
politics,  and  a  return  of  the  old  "Machine"  element  to 
power.  But  this  will  not  be  if  The  People  of  California 

mahogany  finish.  Trimmings  in  nickel  or  oxidized.  Large  casters 
on  legs." 

Page  14.  "Automatic  Percentage  Device  on  this  machine  is 
made  so  that  when  Red  or  Black  is  played  all  colors  are  open. 
When  higher  colors  are  played  as  many  are  automatically  'shut 
out'  as  desired.  Can  be  just  as  liberal  or  just  as  strong  as  de- 
sired. 'Rake  off'  can  be  adjusted  for  from  10  per  cent,  to  70  per 
cent." 

Page  15.  "Has  automatic  percentage  device.  When  red  or  black 
is  played  all  colors  are  open.  This  automatic  percentage  arrange- 
ment is  a  very  valuable  feature  and  must  be  thoroughly  under- 
stood to  be  appreciated.  Can  be  set  for  10  per  cent,  'rake  off'  and 
all  the  way  up  to  75  per  cent." 

Page  18.  "Everyone  believed  it  could  not  be  'plugged,'  whereas 
it  actually  has  a  percentage  regulator  of  unique  design  that  is 
only  found  on  the  'Detroit'  machine.  The  'Piker*  manufacturers 
had  to  devise  an  exposed  paywheel  and  soon  came  out  with  a 
'faked'  affair  controlled  on  the  inside.  They  have  all  had  to  take 
a  'back  seat'  for  the  original." 

"The  paywheel  of  a  Detroit  actually  stops  dial  and  causes  the 
pay-out  works  to  operate.  This  principle  is  employed  in  all  our 
machines  where  the  exposed  wheel  is  used." 

Page  19.  "The  'Puck'  has  an  independent  'percentage'  system 
so  that  any  desired  percentage  can  be  had." 


Moral  Issues  181 

understand  what  such  restoration  will  mean.  We  are 
prone  to  regard  the  "Machine"  as  responsible  for  indus- 
trial and  political  evils  only.  But  on  the  side  of  moral 
evils  alone,  machine  rule  is  a  menace  not  only  to  the 
State,  but  to  every  home  in  the  State. 

At  this  point  individuals  of  the  machine  divide.  A 
study  of  legislative  votes  will  show  that  some  members 
are  usually  wrong  on  political  and  moral  issues,  and  right 
on  industrial  questions.  On  the  other  hand,  others  are 
wrong  on  industrial  questions  and  generally  right  on 
moral  and  political  questions.  The  record  of  the  machine, 
taken  as  a  whole,  shows  it  wrong  on  all  questions,  al- 
though certain  legislators  who  usually  vote  with  the  ma- 
chine on  political  and  industrial  questions,  vote  right  on 
moral  issues. 

With  such  a  situation,  the  machine  needs  but  small 
margin  to  be  able  to  manipulate  and  trade  until  good 
measures  are  defeated  and  bad  measures  are  passed. 

The  restoration  of  the  machine  means  amendment 
into  ineffectiveness  of  remedial  legislation  for  the  cor- 
rection of  moral  evils  which  have,  during  the  last  two 
years,  gone  on  the  statute  books ;  it  means  prevention 
of  the  passage  of  laws  for  the  correction  of  the  social 
evil;  it  means  the  reappearance  of  prostitutes  in  Senate 
and  Assembly  chambers. 

That  The  People  of  California  will  knowingly  vote 
to  restore  such  conditions  is  unthinkable. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 
AMENDMENT  OF  ANTI-RACETRACK  GAMBLING  LAW. 

The  Walker-Otis  Law  of  /pop  Was  Amended  to  Meet 
Defects  Which  Were  Developed  by  Decisions  of  the 
Courts  in  "Test  Cases." 

The  Walker-Otis  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill 
passed  at  the  1909  session,  in  plain  English  prohibited 
racetrack  gambling.  The  measure  followed  the  New 
York  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  law,  which  Governor 
Hughes  of  that  State  supported  so  vigorously.  It  was 
not  supposed  that  the  criminal  element  by  quibble  or 
quirk  could  evade  its  provisions. 

Nevertheless,  on  the  inevitable  "test  case,"  the  New 
York  court  held  first — and  the  California  courts,  tagging 
along  after,  held  later — that,  under  the  Walker-Otis  law : 

1.  Oral  betting  was  permissible. 

2.  That  a  stake-holder  not  acting  for  gain,  hire  or 
reward  does  not  violate  that  law. 

3.  The  passing  of  wagered  money  and  payment  of 
bets  after  a  race  is  won,  and  acceptance  of  bets  by  the 
winner,   are   not  violations   of  the   law   under  certaain 
circumstances. 

4.  That  one  portion  of  the  act  was  inoperative  in 


Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  Law         183 

view  of  its  inconsistency  with  subsequent  clauses  of  the 
act.211 

Under  this  beneficent  ruling,  the  gamblers  perfected 
a  most  elaborate  scheme  for  evading  the  law. 

As  "bookmaking"  was  prohibited  by  the  Walker-Otis 
law,  in  language  too  plain  even  for  "interpretation,"  the 
old-time  bookmaker  took  unto  himself  the  name  of 
"layer." 

As  "layer"  he  would  stand  in  the  betting  ring  at  the 
racetrack  and  hold  up  before  the  crowd  a  program  of 
the  day's  races.  On  this  program  the  "odds"  on  each 
horse  were  printed. 

As  persons  in  the  crowd  accepted  these  odds  and  made 
their  "bet,"  the  "layer"  announced  the  initials  of  the 
bettor  and  the  amount  bet. 

A  little  in  front  of  the  "layer"  would  stand  a  second 
man,  known  under  the  new  system  as  the  "stake-holder." 

The  duty  of  the  "stake-holder"  was  to  accept  the 
money  placed  by  the  bettor.  The  stake-holder,  in  a  tone 
of  voice  loud  enough  for  the  "layer"  to  hear  would  an- 
nounce the  amount  bet. 

Under  the  rulings  of  the  courts  the  performance  thus 
far  was,  under  the  Walker-Otis  law,  perfectly  lawful, 
unless  the  "stake-holder"  were  "acting  for  gain,"  a  thing 
difficult  if  not  impossible  to  prove.  But  at  this  point  came 

211  Under  machine  rule,  the  racetrack  gamblers  were  powerful 
enough  to  safeguard  their  interests  in  the  Legislature  by  securing 
the  nomination  and  election  of  legislators  in  accord  and  sympathy 
with  them.  The  Senate  Committee  on  Public  Morals  was  notor- 
iously dominated  by  the  gambling  element.  Under  the  same  ma- 
chine order,  candidates  for  the  bench  were  nominated  and  elected. 
The  gamblers  were  given  the  same  opportunity  to  name  Judges  in 
sympathy  with  their  purposes,  as  to  nominate  legislators.  Those 
who  know  the  character  of  the  "sure-thing"  gambler  will  scarcely 
hold  that  the  gambling  fraternity  had  the  self-control  and  patriot- 
ism to  resist  the  temptation  to  avail  itself  of  this  opportunity. 


184        Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  Law 

the  necessity  of  recording  the  bet.  The  record  was  kept 
by  a  third  man,  who  was  under  instructions  to  keep  away 
from  the  "layer"  and  the  "stake-holder."  This  third  man 
was  paid  $10  a  day  for  his  services.  It  was  his  duty  to 
record  each  bet.  He  did  so  by  noting  it  on  a  tab  con- 
cealed in  his  coat  pocket,  or  on  his  cuff.  At  this  point 
the  system  was  weak,  for  every  time  the  third  man  re- 
corded a  bet  he  violated  the  Walker-Otis  law. 

But  the  third  man  was  not  employed  by  the  "layer" ; 
oftentimes  he  could  not  have  told  who  had  employed 
him,  even  had  he  so  desired.  He  only  knew  that  he  got 
ten  dollars  for  his  services.  The  compensation  covered 
the  risk  of  going  to  jail. 

About  a  race  track  hundreds  of  men  could  be  em- 
ployed on  this  basis.  The  real  criminals,  the  gamblers, 
were  beyond  the  reach  of  the  law. 

Such  was  the  effectiveness  of  the  Walker-Otis  law 
after  the  courts  of  this  State  had  passed  upon  it.  That 
racetrack  gambling  could  be  stopped,  it  was  necessary 
that  the  Legislature  should  correct  the  defects  which  the 
court's  interpretation  had  uncovered.  And  this  the  race- 
track gamblers  were  determined  should  not  be  done. 

But  it  was  done. 

The  amended  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill  was 
drawn  by  William  H.  Donahue,  District  Attorney  of 
Alameda  County. 

Instead  of  containing  a  single  sentence,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  Walker-Otis  law,  the  measure  was  drawn  in  sub- 
divisions, each  stating  a  complete  offense  in  itself,  and 
not  depending  upon  any  other  clause  for  construction 
or  interpretation. 


Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  Law         185 

As  Mr.  Donahue  drew  the  bill,  and  as  it  passed  the 
Legislature : 

1.  Pool  selling  or  book  making,  whether  done  with 
or  without  writing,  is  prohibited. 

2.  The  use  of  any  paraphernalia  for  gambling  in 
any  place  is  prohibited,  whether  used  gratuitously  or 
otherwise. 

3.  The  stake-holder  and  the  person  who  forwards 
a  bet  is  made  amenable  to  the  law,  whether  he  acts 
gratuitously  or  otherwise. 

4.  Receiving,    or    recording,    or    registering    bets, 
whether  done  in  a  single  instance,  or  as  a  business,  is 
made  unlawful. 

5.  The  owner  or  owners  of  the  racetrack  who  per- 
mit any  violation  of  this  law  are  made  just  as  guilty  as 
the  original  offender. 

6.  The  making  of  any  bet,  whether  oral  or  other- 
wise, upon  any  trial  or  contest  of  skill,  speed  or  power 
of  endurance  of  beasts,  man  or  mechanical  apparatus,  is 
made  unlawful. 

The  measure  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Walker 
of  Santa  Clara,  and  in  the  Assembly  by  Young  of  Ala- 
meda.  It  became  known  as  the  Walker- Young  bill. 

The  one  sharp  contest  over  this  bill  came  before  a 
joint  meeting  of  the  Senate  and  Assembly  committees 
on  Public  Morals.  But  the  old-time  machine  no  longer 
dominated  the  committee.  Instead,  Senator  Bell  of 
Pasadena  presided. 

Frank  Daroux,  the  gambler,  was  in  Sacramento,  but 
he  was  not  heard,  as  he  had  been  two  years  before  when 


1 86        Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  Law 

the  Walker-Otis  bill  was  before  the  Senate  Public 
Morals  committee.212 

Tom  Williams  appeared  as  the  principal  speaker 
against  the  bill,  but  he  made  no  attack  upon  the  pro- 
ponents of  the  bill  who  were  present,  nor  did  he  vilify 
the  Protestant  clergy  as  he  had  done  when  the  Walker- 
Otis  bill  was  before  the  committee  two  years  before.212 

Williams'  argument  against  the  bill — if  it  may  be 
regarded  as  an  argument — was  that  its  passage  would 
make  the  breeding  of  thoroughbred  horses  impossible.213 

Senator  George  S.  Walker,  who  headed  the  fight  in 
the  Upper  House  for  effective  anti-racetrack  gambling 
legislation  both  at  the  1909  and  the  1911  session,  gave 
a  review  of  the  passage  of  the  Walker-Otis  law,  what 
had  been  expected  of  it,  and  what  it  was  proposed  should 
be  accomplished  by  the  passage  of  the  Walker- Young 
measure.214 

But  the  principal  argument  for  the  bill  was  made 
by  District  Attorney  Donahue. 

Donahue  told  the  story  of  conditions  at  the  Emery- 

212  See  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,  Chapters 
VI  and  VIL 

218  District  Attorney  Donahue's  reply  to  this  was  most  effective. 

"Much  as  I  admire  the  racehorse  as  a  noble  animal,"  said 
Mr.  Donahue,  "yet  If  it  is  a  Question  on  the  one  hand  of  preserv- 
ing the  highly  bred  horse,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  of  conserving  the 
manhood  of  the  State,  I  say  to  you,  frankly,  that  The  People  of 
the  State  of  California  want  the  members  of  this  Legislature  to 
conserve  the  manhood  of  the  State  and  preserve  the  morals  of 
Society  by  enacting  this  law  which  suppresses  racetrack  gambling." 

214  Senator  Walker  stated  that  when  the  Walker-Otis  law  was 
passed,  it  was  thought  that  bookmaking  and  poolselling  at  the 
racetracks  would  be  prevented. 

"I  thought  then,"  said  Walker,  "and  I  think  now,  that  the 
Walker-Otis  law  is  a  good  law.  But  the  Courts  have  held  other- 
wise, and  the  bill  before  you  has  been  introduced  to  meet  the 
defects  which  the  Courts  have  found  in  the  law  passed  two  years 
ago." 


Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  Law         187 

ville  racetrack;  showed  how  unscrupulous  men  were 
at  the  track  preying  upon  gullible  victims;  showed  that 
the  law  was  not  only  being  evaded,  but  broken ; 215 
showed  that  perjury  was  being  added  to  the  crimes 
which  the  gamblers  were  forcing  upon  the  State. 

The  committees,  after  hearing  the  arguments,  unani- 
mously reported  the  measure  back  to  their  respective 
houses  with  the  recommendation  that  it  "do  pass." 

The  next  move  of  the  opponents  of  the  bill  was  to 
delay  its  passage.  Their  purpose  was  to  permit  con- 
tinuance of  the  operations  at  Emeryville — where  the 
gambling,  law-evasion,  law-breaking  and  perjury-pro- 
moting, which  District  Attorney  Donahue  had  described, 
was  going  on — to  the  last  possible  day. 

Soon  after  the  action  of  the  committee,  Frank  Lea- 
vitt,  once  Senate  leader,  appealed  to  his  former  asso- 
ciates to  amend  the  act  so  that  it  would  not  take  effect 
immediately  upon  receiving  the  Governor's  signature. 

The  petitioning  Leavitt  was  in  curious  contrast  to 

215  After  showing:  how  the  recorder  of  bets  is  clearly  guilty  of 
crime,  District  Attorney  Donahue  went  on: 

"The  question  may  now  be  asked,  why  do  not  the  officers  prose- 
cute the  man  who  records  the  bet  and  the  man  who  makes  the 
record  upon  the  program?  The  answer  is  that  it  is  almost  impossi- 
ble to  secure  evidence  that  will  warrant  a  conviction,  by  reason 
of  the  fact  that  no  one  sees  the  record,  made  and  those  unfor- 
tunate men  who  accept  this  employment^  do  not  know  by  whom 
they  are  employed.  All  they  know  is  by  whom  they  are  paid,  and 
there  is  no  way  to  show  that  the  man  who  pays  them  knows 
what  they  are  being  paid  for,  except  that  he  is  following  instruc- 
tions. Fifteen  of  those  men  were  caught,  right  in  operation,  brought 
before  the  Grand  Jury,  and,  in  addition  to  the  crimes  they  were 
committing  each  day,  every  one  of  them  added  to  that  crime,  the 
crime  of  perjury,  by  denying  that  they  knew  anything  about  the 
records  being  made,  or  that  a  record  was  made.  There  is  no 
doubt  but  that  the  bookmaker  and  the  stakeholder,  who  are  the 
'gentlemen'  in  the  game,  have  full  knowledge  of  the  fact  that 
there  is  in  the  crowd  a  man  who  makes  a  record,  and  they  repeat, 
in  an  audible  tone,  in  order  that  he  may  make  that  record,  but 
they  industriously  keep  from  contact  and  from  any  communication 
with  him,  in  public." 


1 88        Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  Law 

the  Leavitt  of  1907,  who  was  then  a  member  of  the 
Senate  Public  Morals  Committee  which  held  up  the 
Eshleman  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill,  which  had 
passed  the  Assembly,  thus  blocking  further  action  upon 
it.  The  principal  argument  made  for  delay,  was  that 
unless  the  horses  at  Emeryville  were  given  time  to  eat 
up  the  hay  stored  there,  great  loss  would  ensue. 

Astonishing  as  it  may  seem,  the  Progressive  leaders 
in  the  Senate  finally  yielded  to  this  curious  argument, 
and  consented  to  an  amendment  by  which  the  bill  would 
not  go  into  effect  until  fifteen  days  after  its  passage. 

This  meant  that  the  measure  had  to  be  reprinted  and 
be  again  compared  by  the  Senate  Committee  on  Enroll- 
ment and  Engrossment. 

In  the  Enrollment  and  Engrossment  Committee, 
measures  are  passed  upon  in  the  order  in  which  they 
are  received.  The  Oakland  Municipal  Charter  had 
precedence  in  the  Committee  over  the  Walker- Young 
bill.  Numerous  errors  were  discovered  in  the  printing 
of  the  Oakland  Charter.  As  a  result,  action  on  the 
Walker- Young  bill  was  delayed.  Every  day's  delay 
meant  another  day  of  opportunity  and  exploitation  for 
the  gamblers  at  Emeryville.  In  one  way  and  another, 
there  was  a  delay  of  two  days  in  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

This  thoroughly  exasperated  Progressive  leaders, 
who  had  intended  to  act  generously  with  the  gamblers. 
But  the  Progressives  had  a  club  well  calculated  to  prove 
effective. 

The  Assembly  companion  to  the  Senate  bill  had  not 
been  amended  to  give  the  gamblers  their  fifteen  days  of 
grace.  It  could  be  passed  in  the  Assembly  at  any  time, 


Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  Law         189 

and  rushed  -over  to  the  Senate,  where  its  passage  was 
but  a  matter  of  a  few  hours. 

That  this  move  would  be  taken  unless  the  blocking 
of  the  Senate  bill  was  stopped,  became  common  talk  at 
the  Capitol.  In  a  twinkling  the  Senate  bill  got  clear 
way  in  the  Senate  and  was  passed  by  that  body.  Three 
days  later  the  bill  passed  the  Assembly. 

Within  a  few  hours  after  its  passage,  the  measure 
had  been  signed  by  Governor  Johnson,  and  had  become 
the  law  of  the  State.216 

216  An  attempt  was  made  by  C.  T.  Boots  and  other  reputable 
horsemen  to  secure  legislation  which  would  authorize  the  appoint- 
ment by  the  Governor  of  a  commission  to  oversee  horse-racing1  in 
California,  and  to  place  the  sport  on  a  legitimate  basis.  But  the 
gambling  element,  by  trickery,  inserted  a  paragraph  in  one  of  the 
drafts  of  the  proposed  measure,  which  would  have  practically  re- 
stored the  conditions  at  the  race  courses  which  prevailed  before 
the  passage  of  the  Walker-Otis  bill  in  1909.  A  second  bill  was 
prepared  and  introduced,  but  this  measure  did  not  come  to  a  vote 
in  either  House. 


CHAPTER  XV. 
PROPONENTS  AND  OPPONENTS  OF  LOCAL  OPTION. 

Growing  Opposition  to  the  Saloon  Comes  From  Condi- 
tions Due  to  Its  Exploitation  by  Interests  Which  Are 
at  the  Same  Time  Exploiting  the  Social  Evil. 

Under  the  domination  of  the  machine,  when  public 
demand  for  the  passage  of  a  good  measure  could  no 
longer  be  ignored,  the  trick  was  to  amend  the  bill  into 
ineffectiveness,  and  then  enact  it  into  law. 

The  opposition  to  the  Local  Option  bill  attempted  this 
at  the  1911  session.  The  contest  which  ensued  was  long 
and  bitter,  but  in  the  end  the  proponents  of  Local  Option 
won  a  substantial  victory. 

The  fight  made  against  the  Local  Option  bill  at  the 
1911  session  was  not  unlike  the  opposition,  two  years 
before,  to  the  passage  of  an  effective  Direct  Primary 
law.  The  railroad  lobby  which  made  the  fight  against 
the  Direct  Primary  bill  memorable,  was  absent  from  the 
1911  session  to  be  sure.  But  the  liquor  lobby  took  its 
place,  and  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  session 
labored,  not  to  defeat  the  Local  Option  bill  in  its  en- 
tirety, as  had  been  the  policy  at  previous  sessions,  but 
to  substitute  for  the  practical  county  unit  of  prohibition 
the  impractical  township  unit.  That  is  to  say,  under 
the  bill  as  it  was  originally  introduced,  the  people  of 
any  city  or  town,  or  of  any  county  outside  cities  and 


Local  Option  191 

towns,  could  call  an  election  by  petition,  to  decide 
whether  or  not  saloons  should  be  licensed  in  the  terri- 
tory covered.  The  opponents  of  local  option  aimed  to 
have  the  elections  outside  cities  and  towns  confined  to 
townships. 

There  were  many  good  reasons  why  the  township 
unit  should  not  be  substituted: 

(1)  Upon  a  city  or  town  voting  "dry"  the  narrow 
rim  of  the  township  in  which  such  city  or  town  might 
be  located,  could  be,  and  to  a  certainty  would  be,  colo- 
nized by  the  liquor  interests,  a  Local   Option  election 
called,  and  the   licensing  of  saloons   authorized.     The 
city  that  had  voted  out  saloons  would  thus  find  itself 
surrounded,  without  opportunity  for  police  regulation, 
with  road  houses  and  saloons  of  the  character  to  be 
looked  for  when  police  regulation  is  slack  or  is  removed. 

(2)  The  boundaries  of  a  township  are  subject  to 
change   at  any  time  at  the  hands   of  the   supervisors. 
Hostile   supervisors  could   thus   run   township   lines  to 
ensure  a  number  of  "wet"  townships,  which,  with  the 
business  monopolized  and  beyond  police  control,  would 
eventually  lead  to  abuse  and  scandal. 

There  were  various  other  arguments  advanced  in 
opposition  to  the  township  unit,  but  enough  has  been 
said  to  show  that  the  substitution  of  the  township  for 
the  county  unit  would,  generally  speaking,  have  ren- 
dered the  Local  Option  law  little  better  than  a  farce. 

Nevertheless,  the  point  of  attack  was  well  calculated 
to  promote  friction  among  the  proponents  of  Local  Op- 
tion themselves. 

(1)    In  the  Middle  West,  where  Local  Option  has 


192  Local  Option 

been  employed  with  the  greatest  success,  the  unit  of 
prohibition  is  the  "township."  But  the  "township"  of 
Middle  West  States  is  a  very  different  political  sub- 
division than  the  indefinite  township  of  California.  In 
California,  as  has  been  seen,  township  lines  may  be 
changed  at  the  whim  of  a  supervisor.  The  township 
organization  gets  no  further  than  justice  of  the  peace 
and  constable,  each  having  functions  which  had  better 
be  entrusted  to  county  judges  and  sheriffs'  offices.  But 
in  the  Middle  West  township  organization  is  not  unlike 
county  organization  in  California,  with  its  Boards  of 
Trustees  and  other  officials. 

But  in  spite  of  this  fact,  opponents  of  the  Local 
Option  bill  cleverly  argued  that  since  the  township  unit 
has  proved  satisfactory  in  the  Middle  West,  the  town- 
ship unit  would  prove  satisfactory  in  California. 

(2)  Then  again,  in  certain  instances,  the  township 
unit  in  California  permits  of  "dry"  townships,  which 
under  the  county  unit  would  be  "wet,"  the  majority  of 
the  voters  of  the  county  in  which  such  townships  are 
located  being  for  licensing  of  saloons.  Thus  several 
very  good  men  in  both  Houses  were  won  over  to  the 
township  unit,217  although  they  had  the  suggestive  fact 
before  them  that  the  known  enemies  of  Local  Option 

SIT  It  is  Interesting  to  note  in  this  regard,  that  until  the  Local 
Option  law  was  passed,  there  was  no  "dry"  territory  in  California, 
township,  or  otherwise,  that  was  "dry"  except  at  the  pleasure  of 
the  municipal  trustees,  if  the  territory  were  a  town  or  city,  or  of  the 
supervisors,  if  the  territory  were  a  township  or  county.  Even 
under  the  county,  or  the  supervisorial  district  unit,  the  super- 
visors need  not  issue  licenses  even  in  territory  which  has  voted 
"wet."  Even  under  the  Local  Option  law,  regardless  of  the  super- 
visorial district  vote,  no  Board  of  Supervisors  need  force  saloons 
upon  a  township  that  does  not  want  them. 

Curiously  enough,  the  Local  Option  proponents  were  willing  to 
have  a  provision  put  into  the  bill  to  make  it  mandatory  upon  the 


Local  Option  193 

were  working  for  the  township  unit  and  the  recognized 
friends  of  Local  Option  against  the  township  unit. 

(3)  At  the  1909  session  the  proponents  of  Local 
Option  had  consented  to  the  township  unit. 

This  argument  was  strongly  urged  against  the 
county  unit,  the  inference  being  that  those  who  were 
for  the  township  unit  at  the  1909  session  were  not 
showing  good  faith  in  refusing  to  accept  the  township 
unit  in  1911. 

But  the  manner  in  which  the  Local  Option  people 
were  tricked  into  consenting  to  the  township  unit  at  the 
1909  session  reflects  no  particular  credit  upon  those 
who  forced  the  township  unit  feature  upon  them. 

Briefly,  it  was  represented  to  the  proponents  of  the 
1909  bill,  that  if  the  bill  be  amended  to  make  the  town- 


governing  boards  of  municipal  trustees  or  of  county  supervisors  in 
territory  that  might  vote  "wet"  to  Issue  saloon  licenses. 

Such  a  provision  would  have  required  a  statement  of  the  con- 
ditions under  which  the  license  should  be  Issued. 

The  Local  Option  people  were  willing  that  there  be  no  restric- 
tions, thus  putting  the  question  squarely  up  to  the  people,  of  no 
license  or  wide-open  town.  The  saloon  people  realized  that  this 
would  not  do,  for  few  California  communities  would  vote  for  a 
"wide-open"  policy,  and  every  Local  Option  election  would  result 
In  defeat  for  the  saloons. 

On  the  other  hand,  such  restrictions  as  would  govern  in  the 
Issuance  of  saloon  licenses  would  have  to  be  made  uniform.  These 
restrictions  would  also  have  to  be  made  strict,  or  The  People  of 
the  greater  part  of  the  State  would  vote  the  no-license  ticket. 
But  if  the  restrictions  were  made  strict,  the  Local  Option  people 
would  call  elections  in  communities  where  the  saloons  are  strongly 
entrenched  and  saloon  regulation  is  lax.  In  such  communities  the 
"drys"  would  win  no  matter  how  the  election  went.  If  the  com- 
munity voted  "dry,"  the  saloons  would  be  closed.  If  it  voted 
"wet,"  the  saloons  would  be  brought  under  the  restrictions  of  the 
Local  Option  law. 

The  opponents  of  the  bill,  therefore,  were  prepared  to  oppose 
anything  that  would  make  it  mandatory  upon  the  governing  board 
of  the  territory  in  which  Local  Option  elections  might  be  held,  to 
issue  licenses  If  the  community  voted  to  license  saloons. 

Thus,   when  territory  does  vote  "wet,"   there  Is  nothing  In  the 
law  to  compel  the  governing  board  to  issue  saloon  licenses  because 
the  liquor  people  themselves  object  to  such  provision. 
7 


194  Local  Option 

ship  the  unit  of  prohibition,  the  measure  would  be 
passed,  otherwise  it  would  be  defeated. 

As  in  the  case  of  many  good  citizens  who  appear  at 
sessions  of  the  Legislature,  the  Local  Option  advocates 
did  not  realize  that  compromise  with  the  machine  means 
defeat.  The  proponents  of  the  bill  realized  that  at  the 
1909  session,  through  control  of  the  committees  of  the 
two  Houses,  the  "Machine"  had  the  whip  hand.  They 
hoped  even  with  the  impractical  township218  unit,  to  get 
a  comparatively  effective  bill,  which  was  to  be  the  open- 
ing wedge  to  something  better  later  on.  They  accord- 
ingly consented  to  the  township  compromise  and  bent 
their  energies  toward  strengthening  the  bill  in  other 
particulars. 

The  machine  leaders  thereupon  turned  about  and 
defeated  the  bill.219 

But  the  fight  for  a  practical  Local  Option  measure 
did  not  end  with  the  defeat  of  Local  Option  in  the  1909 
Senate.  As  in  the  case  of  so  many  other  reforms  ac- 
complished in  1911,  the  Local  Option  fight  in  1909  was 
the  beginning  of  a  contest  which  two  years  later  was 
to  be  fought  to  successful  conclusion. 

The  proponents  of  the  measure  after  their  defeat  in 
1909  went  before  The  People  with  a  campaign  of  edu- 
cation, the  effects  of  which  were  seen  in  the  1911 
Legislature. 

To  meet  this,  the  opponents  of  Local  Option  insti- 

218  It  was  contended  that  at  the  1909  session,  the  local  option 
people  asked  for  the  township  unit  only.     But  this  is  not  the  case. 
The  bill  (Senate  Bill  55,  Series  of  1909),  as  introduced  by  Senator 
Estudillo,  January  8,  1909,  provided  for  the  county  unit.     The  meas- 
ure was  amended  to  substitute  the  township  for  the  county  unit, 
February  19,  1909.     See  Senate  Journal,  1909. 

219  See  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909. 


Local  Option  195 

tuted  one  of  the  most  remarkable  campaigns  against  in- 
dividual candidates  ever  carried  on  in  this  State. 

The  saloonmen's  principal  opposition,  however,  was 
centered  upon  Mr.  A.  J.  Wallace,  candidate  for  Lieu- 
tenant-Governor.220 

The  most  generally  circulated  of  the  pro-saloon  lit- 
erature was  signed  "California  Beer  Bottlers'  State 
Board  of  Trade,  Louis  R.  Levy,  Secretary."  The  cir- 
cular recommended  to  the  saloon  trade  and  its  sympa- 
thizers, "Don't  be  afraid  to  spend  a  dollar-  if  necessary 
where  it  will  do  some  good." 

"In  those  districts  where  we  know  both  candidates 
are  either  fair,  or  are  opposed  to  us,"  the  circular  goes 
on  to  say,  "it  is  useless  to  try  to  do  anything.  Our 
energies  must  be  centered  against  A.  J.  Wallace221  and 
the  names  mentioned  in  the  enclosed  list." 

Although  by  expending  "a  dollar  if  necessary  where 
it  will  do  some  good,"  the  liquor  interest  may  defeat 

220  it  is  interesting   to  note  in  this  particular  that  the  saloon 
campaign   against  Mr.   Wallace  resulted   in  nothing.     Mr.    Wallace 
was  elected.     In  this  connection,  it  may  be  added,  that  five  of  the 
twelve    State   Senators  who  voted   for  Local  Option   in   1909  were 
candidates  for  re-election  to  the  1911  Legislature.     They  were  Bell, 
Boynton,    Cartwright,    Black  and   Wright.     The   five  were   elected. 
On  the  other  hand,  nine  Senators — Anthony,  McCartney,  Kennedy, 
Willis,     Price,    Leavitt,    Reilly,    Weed    and    Hartman — who    voted 
against  the  1909   Local  Option  bill,   were  not  re-elected   to   sit   in 
the  1911  Legislature. 

221  This  attack  upon  Wallace  was  generally  condemned,  even  by 
those  who  took  no  particular  interest  in  his  candidacy.     This  was 
well  expressed  by  the  Santa  Cruz  News  in  its  issue  of  November 
18,  1910: 

"When  the  News  found  the  State  placarded  with  bills  and  the 
papers  in  the  larger  cities  spread  over  with  advertisements  calling 
upon  the  people  to  defeat  A.  J.  Wallace  for  Lieutenant-Governor, 
because  he  is  out  of  sympathy  with  the  liquor  interest,  this  paper 
took  special  notice  of  his  candidacy  and  called  upon  the  people  to 
vote  for  him.  The  News  did  this  because  it  does  not  want  to  see 
any  man  boycotted  for  his  opinions.  At  the  time,  it  reminded 
the  liquor  interest  that  it  was  making  a  serious  blunder,  for  such 
methods  would  be  sure  to  spread  sentiment  for  the  threatened 
Local  Option  law  and  other  restrictive  legislation  aimed  at  the 


196  Local  Option 

this  or  that  candidate  for  the  Legislature,  they  cannot 
stem  the  tide  that  is  unquestionably  gathering  against 
the  saloon  business  as  it  has  been  and  is  being  conducted 
in  California. 

The  evils  complained  of  come  from  the  combined 
exploitation  of  the  saloon  business  and  of  the  social  evil 
and  gambling  by  wholesale  liquor  houses  and  even  by 
financial  institutions.222 

The    conditions    that    inevitably    result    from    this 

saloon.  The  News  has  received  the  following1  letter  from  the  Lieu- 
tenant -  Governor-  elect : 

"  'To  the  Editor  of  the  News:  Sir — A  very  great  many  have 
sent  me  congratulations  in  these  days,  but  what  I  prize  In  your 
case  is  the  evidence  of  the  earnest  work  done  before  the  final  day. 
Your  putting  of  things  in  the  News  was  very  strong  and  just  the 
kind  of  thing  that  is  helpful.  The  liquor  business  hurt  itself  and 
strengthened  the  forces  opposed  to  it. 

"  'But  it  is  the  future  we  must  look  to  and  the  chance  to  do 
good  work,  or  receive  deserved  condemnation.  The  opportunity  at 
Sacramento  this  winter  is  great. 

"  'Thanking  you  again  for  the  hearty  work  In  my  behalf  and  in 
behalf  of  the  ticket,  Yours  very  truly, 

"  'Los  Angeles,   Nov.   14.  A.   J.   WALLACE.' 

"The  'liquor  people'  have  exactly  the  same  right  to  engage  in 
politics  as  the  'church  people.'  But  when  a  campaign  is  made 
against  a  good  man  on  the  single  ground  that  he  is  not  in  sympa- 
thy with  the  saloon,  it  will  arouse  the  same  resentment  in  any 
fair-minded  citizen  that  would  be  aroused  by  a  campaign  of  'church 
people'  against  a  good  man  because  he  is  not  satisfied  that  prohibi- 
tion is  the  true  solution  of  the  liquor  question." 

222  Astonishing  examples  of  this  are  furnished  in  the  official  re- 
port on  the  San  Francisco  Graft  Prosecution,  made  by  a  commit- 
tee of  citizens,  appointed  October  12,  1908,  by  Hon.  Edward  R. 
Taylor,  then  mayor  of  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco.  The 
committee  consisted  of  Mr.  William  Denman,  chairman,  a  leader 
of  the  San  Francisco  bar,  and  son  of  the  founder  of  the  public 
school  system  of  that  city;  Mr.  Alexander  Goldstein,  one  of  the 
foremost  merchants  of  California;  Rev.  William  K.  Guthrie,  a  prom- 
inent Presbyterian  clergyman;  Hon.  William  Kent,  now  Congress- 
man from  the  Second  Congressional  District,  a  successful  business- 
man and  capitalist;  Dr.  Henry  Gibbons,  Jr.,  dean  of  the  Cooper 
Medical  College;  Mr.  Will  J.  French,  a  prominent  labor  leader  and 
editor  of  the  San  Francisco  "Labor  Clarion";  and  Rev.  Father 
D.  O.  Crowley,  who  has  done  a  magnificent  work  in  providing  care 
and  education  for  homeless  boys. 

After  describing  the  notorious  "French  restaurants"  that  flour- 
ished in  San  Francisco  during  the  Schmitz-Ruef  regime,  the  report 
prepared  by  this  commitee  sets  forth: 

"One  of  the  largest  of  these  assignation  places  was  located  on 
a  prominent  corner  of  the  downtown  shopping  district,  where  nun- 


Local  Option  197 

alliance  find  expression  in  the  scandals  which  are  made 
manifest  through  the  retail  saloon,  roadhouse  and  dive. 
As  President  David  Starr  Jordan,  in  a  letter  to  the 
members  of  the  Legislature,  advocating  the  passage  of 
the  Local  Option  law,  tersely  put  it,  "Most  young  men 
who  frequent  saloons  sooner  or  later  find  themselves  in 
the  brothel.  Every  prostitute,  male  or  female,  the 
world  over,  is  sooner  or  later  a  victim  of  one  or  the 
other  of  the  Red  Plagues.  For  these  reasons,  the  sa- 
loon, as  we  know  it,  is  everywhere  a  menace  and  a 


dreds  of  women  dally  passed  Its  doors.  The  building,  five  stories 
in  height,  had  four  stories  devoted  to  the  private  supper  bedrooms. 
The  land  was  owned  in  trust  by  one  of  the  largest,  if  not  the 
largest,  trust  company  in  the  West.  A  lease  was  sought  and  ob- 
tained by  a  man  notorious  in  the  line  of  business  above  described; 
the  building  was  constructed  by  the  trust  company  according  to 
plans  satisfactory  to  him  for  this  purpose,  and  the  enterprise  was 
conducted  there  for  seven  years  until  the  building  was  destroyed 
by  fire. 

"The  significant  thing  about  such  a  transaction  is,  not  that  there 
are  people  who  are  willing  to  accept  money  from  such  a  source,  or 
financiers  willing  to  put  trust  moneys  to  such  uses,  but  that  the 
facts,  though  well  known,  did  not  seem  to  detract  in  the  slightest 
from  the  social  recognition  accorded  to  the  persons  so  taking  a 
share  of  the  profits,  while  the  officer  of  the  trust  company  which 
made  the  lease  of  that  particular  house  situated  in  the  shopping 
district  was  appointed  a  regent  of  the  State  University." 

The  report  goes  on  to  detail  a  raid  upon  a  notorious  house  of 
prostitution,  and  then  described  the  outcome  as  follows: 

"In  the  raid  one  hundred  and  sixty  prostitutes  were  arrested 
from  the  one  house,  and  released  on  the  deposit  of  bail  money  ex- 
ceeding in  all  sixteen  thousand  dollars.  It  was  subsequently  pub- 
lished— and  never  denied — that  the  money  was  furnished  by  a  prom- 
inent liquor  man  who  was,  at  the  time  of  the  publication,  the  presi- 
dent of  one  of  the  oldest,  the  most  powerful,  and  the  richest  of 
the  associations  of  merchants  in  the  city.  That  their  president,  a 
wholesale  liquor  man,  might  be  also  a  wholesale  backer  of  prostitu- 
tion, did  not  arouse  the  merchants  to  the  extent  of  even  making  an 
investigation,  and  he  served  out  his  term,  which,  at  the  time  of 
the  exposure  had  less  than  one-half  expired.  The  fact  that  his 
company  was,  at  the  time  of  the  raid,  selling  liquors  to  a  large 
number  of  resorts  whose  licenses  were  dependent  upon  the  Schmitz 
Board  of  Police  Commissioners  was  accepted  by  many  as  a  suffi- 
cient excuse  for  his  supplying  the  bail." 


198  Local  Option 

curse,  which  no  civilised  community  would  tolerate  were 
it  not  for  the  money  behind  it."*23 

Senator  Stetson,  although  opposing  the  county  unit, 
stated  before  the  Free  Conference  Committee,  of  which 
he  was  a  member,  that  "The  liquor  conditions  at  Sacra- 

223  President  Jordan's  letter  was  In  full  as  follows: 

"Stanford  University,  Cal.,  Jan.   27,  1911. 

"May  I  ask  your  attention  for  a  moment  to  certain  considerations 
on  temperance,  in  view  of  the  legislation  now  pending  at  Sacra- 
mento? 

"The  question  of  temperance  is  three-fold — the  problem  of  mod- 
erate drinking,  the  problem  of  drunkenness,  and  the  problem  of 
the  saloon. 

"As  to  moderate  drinking,  it  would  be  no  public  concern  if  It 
would  stay  moderate,  and  if  the  places  devoted  to  it  were  not  of 
themselves  sources  of  public  danger.  Moderate  drinking  has  its 
perils,  but  they  are  met  by  education  rather  than  by  legislation. 

"Drunkenness  is  a  public  matter,  for  the  drunken  man  is  de- 
ranged, temporarily  or  permanently,  and  becomes  a  public  nuisance. 
Drunkenness  is  a  constant  menace  to  society,  and  society  has  no 
business  to  tolerate  that  kind  of  traffic  which  brings  it  about. 

"The  saloon  is  a  place  in  which  liquor  is  sold  under  social 
conditions.  The  average  saloon  sells  much  beer,  little  wine,  and 
considerable  whisky,  in  bad  company,  with  the  features  of  much 
treating  and  small  gambling.  Beer  is  one  of  the  weakest  of  alco- 
holics, but  in  the  way  in  which  it  is  used  it  has  become  one  of  the 
most  dangerous.  Enough  beer  destroys  a  boy's  will.  It  may  lead 
to  the  whisky  habit,  and  that  habit  to  destruction.  Far  worse  is 
the  close  connection  between  the  saloon  and  the  brothel.  Half- 
drunken  boys  are  swept  off  to  the  red  light  district  to  be  poisoned 
for  life  by  the  Red  Plagues.  Two  little,  slow-maturing  parasitic 
plants  constitute  one  of  the  greatest  curses  the  world  knows.  The 
one  produces  Syphilis,  slowly  eating  up  the  walls  of  the  little 
blood  vessels,  and  consigning  its  victim  to  a  living  death.  The  other 
plant  produces  the  disease  of  Gonorrhea,  less  hideous,  but  equally 
dangerous  because  no  patient  ever  knows  that  he  is  cured  of  it. 
Its  trend  of  consequences  to  wife  and  children  make  one  of  the 
most  ghastly  chapters  in  the  history  of  medicine.  Most  young  men 
who  frequent  saloons  sooner  or  later  find  themselves  in  the  brothel. 
Every  prostitute,  male  or  female,  the  world  over,  is  sooner  or  later 
a  victim  of  one  or  the  other  of  the  Red  Plagues. 

"For  these  reasons,  the  saloon,  as  we  knew  it,  is  everywhere  a 
menace  and  a  curse,  which  no  civilized  community  would  tolerate 
were  it  not  for  the  money  behind  it. 

"Besides  the  ordinary  saloon,  bad  enough  at  its  best,  we  have 
two  forms  of  drinking  places  which  especially  demand  suppression — 
the  Dive  and  the  Roadhouse.  The  dive  is  the  expression  of  per- 
sonal degeneration  in  the  cities,  the  drinking  place  at  which  music, 
women  and  dancing  are  brought  in  as  additional  temptations  to 
the  weak  and  the  wavering.  If  we  must  have  drinking  places,  we 
should  keep  our  women  out  of  them.  Those  who  frequent  these 
places  must  leave  all  hope  behind.  The  roadhouse  is  a  saloon  out- 
side of  government,  and  which  may  be  as  bad  as  bad  men  and 
worse  women  can  make  them.  Around  each  of  our  cities  the  road- 


Local  Option  199 

mento224  are  enough  to  make  a  prohibitionist  out  of 
anyone,"  and  that  "It  would  be  better  for  the  State  if 
every  county  went  dry." 

It  may  be  said,  however,  that  the  "liquor  conditions" 
at  Sacramento  of  which  Mr.  Stetson  complained,  are  no 
worse  than  they  are  at  the  great  majority  of  other  im- 
portant California  cities,  and  are  not  nearly  so  bad, 
even  by  comparison,  as  at  San  Francisco.  And  these 
conditions  come  not  from  the  legitimate  sale  of  liquors, 
but  because  of  the  exploitation  of  the  liquor  business  in 


house  Is  a  house  of  assignation  In  which  hard-drinking  is  merely  an 
incident  in  the  vilest  evils  known  to  society. 

"The  law  we  need  in  California  is  one  already  In  effect  in  sev- 
eral Eastern  States.  It  involves  these  elements: 

"1.    Exclusion  of  women  from  saloons  and  drinking  places. 

"2.  Prohibition  of  all  public  drinking  places  outside  of  incor- 
porated towns. 

"3.  Local  option  of  the  city,  town,  ward  or  other  subdivision 
of  the  city  to  have  the  question  of  license  decided  by  popular  vote. 

"If  it  is  not  feasible  at  the  present  time  for  the  Legislature  to 
go  as  far  as  to  adopt  all  these  measures,  then  surely  it  should  give 
us  such  a  moderate  law  as  proposed  in  the  Wyllie  Local  Option 
bill,  which  will  enable  the  city,  town,  and  unincorporated  portion 
of  the  county  to  determine  for  themselves  whether  the  retail  traffic 
shall  be  licensed  within  the  territory  concerned. 

"It  is  not  against  wine  and  beer  as  such,  but  against  the  public 
saloon,  that  the  present  nation-wide  movement  is  mainly  directed. 
And  every  good  interest,  moral,  social,  and  financial,  demands  the 
abolition  of  the  retail  liquor  traffic  as  it  is  now  carried  on.  If 
our  brewers  can  find  no  other  way  of  disposing  of  their  wares,  then 
society  will  ask  that  they  shall  go  out  of  business,  for  the  public 
good.  I  am,  Very  respectfully  yours, 

"DAVID    STARR   JORDAN." 

224  The  Sacramento  Bee,  in  its  issue  of  January  29,  1911,  con- 
cluded an  editorial  article  on  saloon  conditions  at  the  State  capital 
as  follows: 

"The  Bee  itself  does  not  believe  in  prohibition  as  a  remedy  for 
the  conceded  evils  of  the  liquor  traffic,  but  it  says  quite  frankly 
to  the  Royal  Arch,  for  many  of  the  members  of  which  it  has  sin- 
cere respect,  that  it  will  lead  a  prohibition  campaign  in  Sacra- 
mento rather  than  see  present  conditions  continue,  to  the  injury 
of  youth  and  the  nullification  of  Chamber  of  Commerce  work  in 
development. 

"Gentlemen  of  the  Royal  Arch,  we  will  omit  the  question  of 
morals  involved  in  this  issue.  The  Bee  puts  it  up  to  you  as  a 
practical  proposition.  Do  you  wish  to  stay  in  business,  or  do  you 
wish  to  be  driven  out  by  the  illegal  and  indecent  conduct  of  some 
of  your  members?" 


2oo  Local  Option 

connection  with  the  exploitation  of  the  social  evil  and 
gambling. 

These  exploiters  were  the  real  opponents  of  the 
Local  Option  bill,  although  they  cleverly  kept  in  the 
background  and  let  the  arguments  against  the  bill  be 
advanced  by  hop  growers  and  vineyardists,  particularly 
the  latter.  The  vineyardists  and  wine  men  of  Califor- 
nia, however,  have  very  little  at  stake  in  the  fate  of  the 
saloons. 

The  statement  has  been  made  that  wines  do  not  con- 
stitute 3  per  cent,  of  the  liquors  sold  over  California 
bars.  Wine  men  have  admitted  to  the  writer  that  this 
estimate  is  too  high,  that  2  per  cent,  would  be  nearer 
the  correct  percentage. 

Local  Option  deals  with  the  saloon  primarily. 

Nevertheless,  the  exploiters  of  the  liquor  business, 
who  have  much  at  stake,  cleverly  kept  out  of  sight  and 
permitted  the  California  hop  grower,  grape  grower  and 
wine  maker,225  whose  interests  are  not  so  apparent,  to 
bear  the  brunt  of  the  fight. 

225  The  appeal  to  California  industries  went  beyond  hop  grower, 
vineyardist  and  grape  crusher.  An  owner  of  a  cherry  orchard  told 
the  writer  recently  that  he  opposed  Local  Option  because  it  would 
ruin  the  California  cherry-growing  industry.  It  developed  that  this 
man  had  been  told  that  cherries  are  used  in  making  cocktails, 
that  the  Local  Option  meant  closing  of  saloons,  and  this  meant 
fewer  cocktails,  and  hence  less  demand  for  cherries. 

As  this  argument  is  actually  taken  seriously  in  some  quarters, 
it  is  not  amiss  to  say  that  the  "California  Fruit  Distributors," 
which  handles  the  bulk  of  the  fresh  deciduous  fruits  shipped  from 
the  State,  is  authority  for  the  statement  that  if  the  California 
cherry  crop  were  to  be  doubled  there  would  still  be  a  ready  sale 
for  it,  and  that  there  is  no  probability  of  the  State  ever  producing 
enough  cherries  to  meet  the  legitimate  demand. 


CHAPTER   XVI. 
COUNTY  UNIT  DEFEATED. 

The  Local  Option  Bill  Passed  the  Assembly  With  Pro- 
vision Making  the  County  the  Unit  of  Prohibition. 
But  in  the  Senate,  by  Narrow  Margin,  the  County 
Unit  Was  Struck  From  the  Bill  and  the  Township 
Unit  Substituted. 

Wyllie  of  Dinuba,  who  introduced  the  Local  Option 
bill  in  the  Assembly  at  the  1909  session,  also  introduced 
the  1911  measure.  Estudillo,  who  had  led  the  Local 
Option  fight  on  the  Senate  side  of  the  Capitol,  assumed 
leadership  in  the  1911  contest  in  the  Upper  House. 

The  lessons  taught  two  years  before  were  not  for- 
gotten. The  Local  Option  people  had  been  schooled 
liberally  at  the  1909  session  in  the  fine  points  of  ma- 
chine deception.  They  realized  that  the  only  way  to 
secure  the  passage  of  a  Local  Option  law  was  to  fight 
for  it,  and  they  went  to  Sacramento  prepared  to  fight. 

No  chances  were  taken.  The  opposition  was  re- 
garded as  an  uncompromising  enemy  of  the  reform,  and 
was  treated  as  such.  Inasmuch  as  neither  the  Repub- 
lican nor  the  Democratic  party  had  declared  for  Local 
Option  in  their  State  platforms,  the  measure  was  with- 
out the  party  backing  which  was  given  the  other  reform 
bills.  The  proponents  of  the  measure  were  thrown  on 
their  own  resources.  In  this  independent  attitude  they 


2O2  County  Unit  Defeated 

alternated  between  defeat  and  success  until  the  close  of 
the  session,  when  they  forced  one  of  the  most  notable 
reform  victories  in  the  history  of  California  legislation.226 

The  first  clash  came  before  a  joint  meeting  of  the 
Senate  and  Assembly  Committees  on  Public  Morals. 
The  scene  was  not  unlike  that  which  attended  the  hear- 
ing on  the  Walker-Otis  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill 
at  the  1909  session.227  There  was  the  same  denuncia- 
tion of  the  proponents  of  the  bill,  similar  abuse  of 
the  clergy,  the  same  questioning  of  motives,  the  same 
predictions  of  direful  injury  to  California  industries  if 
the  measure  became  a  law.  In  1909  the  representation 
was  that  if  the  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill  became  a 
law,  the  California  horse  raising  and  grain  growing 
industries  would  be  seriously  injured.  In  1911,  the 
protestation  was  that  the  passage  of  the  Local  Option 
bill  meant  ruin  for  hop  grower,  vineyardist  and  grape 
crusher.  But  the  greater  part  of  the  time  of  the  op- 
ponents of  the  bill  was  taken  up  with  abuse  of  those  who 
advocated  its  passage. 

The  principal  speakers  who  opposed  the  bill  were 
Henry  Austin  Adams ;  J.  W.  Bourdette  of  the  California 
Brewers'  Association;  George  E.  Farwell,  Pacific  Coast 
representative  of  the  National  Manufacturers'  and  Busi- 
nessmen's Association,  and  A.  Sbarboro  of  the  Italian 
Bank  of  San  Francisco. 

Of  Mr.  Sbarboro,  it  may  be  said,  he  did  not  descend 

228  The  credit  for  this  victory  is  primarily  due  to  the  untiring 
efforts  of  Rev.  D.  M.  Gandier,  without  whose  vigilance  and  tireless 
devotion  to  principle,  the  Local  Option  bill  could  not  have  been 
passed. 

227  See  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,  Chapters 
VI  and  VII. 


County  Unit  Defeated  203 

to  abuse  and  vilification,  nor  did  he  denounce  the  pro- 
ponents of  the  measure  in  lieu  of  argument.  Instead 
he  argued  for  the  use  of  wines  in  the  home,  which  was 
not  in  issue  at  all.  With  vitriolic  abuse  from  most  of  the 
speakers  in  opposition  to  the  measure,  and  a  curious 
lecture  on  the  wholesomeness  of  the  drinking  of  wine  at 
meals  from  Sbarboro,228  the  opponents  of  the  bill  made 
little  headway. 

The  proponents  of  the  measure,  after  stating  their 
case,  rested,  except  for  an  occasional  yielding  to  the  temp- 
tation to  poke  fun  at  their  angry  opponents. 

Adams,  for  example,  stated  that  a  Vermont  town 
which  had  gone  "dry,"  was  importing  "tons  of  cocaine" 
as  a  substitute  for  intoxicants. 

Chester  H.  Rowell,  who  spoke  for  the  bill,  good- 
naturedly  observed  that  that  town  must  be  fabulously 
rich,  because  cocaine  by  the  ton  costs  something  like 
$115,000. 

The  principal  speakers  in  behalf  of  the  bill  were  Rev. 
D.  M.  Gandier  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League;  Chester  H. 
Rowell;  Hon.  E.  P.  McDaniel,  Judge  of  the  Superior 
Court  of  Yuba  County ;  and  Hon.  J.  O.  Davis  of  Berke- 
ley, a  former  Assemblyman,  and  prominent  as  a  Demo- 
cratic party  leader  in  California. 

The  sane  arguments  223  of  the  proponents,  presented 

228  Sbarbaro's  address  was  the  same  talk  which  he  has  delivered 
BO  many  times  on  the  liquor  question.     Sbarbaro's  earnestness  must 
be  admitted,  but  he  seems  utterly  unable  to  understand  what  Local 
Option    means,    or    to   grasp   the    fact   that   the    correction   of   the 
abuses  of  the  saloon  will,  in  the  end,  result  to  the  real  advantage 
of  the  grape  grower  and  legitimate  wine  maker  and  seller. 

229  The  proponents  of  the  bill  stuck  to  the  principle  that  The 
People  have  the  right  to  regulate  the  conduct  of  any  business  which 
exists  through   public  grant  of  license. 

"The  right  to  run  a  saloon,"  declared  Chester  H.  Rowell,  "is  a 
public  right,  not  a  private  right.  Any  community  that  wants 
them  ought  to  be  permitted  to  have  them;  and  any  community 
that  does  not  want  them  should  have  the  right  not  to  have  them." 


204  County  Unit  Defeated 

with  exasperating  good  nature,  took  the  opponents  of 
the  bill  off  their  feet.  After  the  meeting  adjourned, 
even  the  leaders  of  the  opposition  admitted  they  had  been 
defeated  at  every  point. 

The  Assembly  Committee  on  Public  Morals  finally  re- 
ported the  bill  back,  the  majority  recommending  its 
passage,  while  a  minority  urged  its  defeat.  The  Assem- 
bly was  quick  to  adopt  the  majority  report,  accepting 
such  amendments  as  the  majority  had  recommended,  and 
passing  the  measure  on  to  third  reading.  This  was  done, 
however,  in  spite  of  the  protest  of  Assemblyman  Schmitt, 
who  took  the  leadership  against  the  bill,  and  was  pre- 
pared to  contest  every  move  toward  its  passage. 

Before  the  measure  came  up  for  final  consideration, 
twenty-four  Assemblymen  23°  met  to  decide  upon  the 
course  to  be  followed  when  the  bill  should  reach  the 
Assembly  floor.  Senator  Estudillo,  who  was  leading  the 
fight  for  the  measure  on  the  Senate  side,  was  present. 

All  but  two  of  the  Assemblymen  present  agreed  to 
support  the  bill  without  further  amendment.  The  two 
in  question  reserved  the  right  to  vote  for  certain  amend- 
ments on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly. 

But  the  organized  proponents  of  the  bill  found  their 
hands  full  in  securing  prompt  consideration  of  the 
measure. 

When  the  bill  came  up  on  January  31,  Wyllie  proposed 
an  amendment  which  was  made  at  the  request  of  the  wine 

230  The  Assemblymen  present  at  the  conference  were:  Benedict, 
Bishop,  Bohnett,  Butler,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Cogswell,  Cronln, 
Gaylord,  Guill,  Hamilton,  Hall,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jasper,  Judson, 
Kehoe,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Smith,  Wilson,  Wyllie,  Young.  The  con- 
ference was  not  called  until  afternoon  of  the  day  it  was  held. 
There  was  no  systematic  attempt  to  reach  all  the  friends  of  the 
bill.  Many  who  would  have  liked  to  attend  knew  nothing  about 
the  meeting  until  it  had  adjourned. 


County  Unit  Defeated  205 

makers.  This  amendment  authorized  the  delivery  of 
wines  in  dry  territory  to  heads  of  households  in  quan- 
tities not  less  than  three  gallons.  The  amendment  re- 
quired the  reprinting  of  the  bill.  Schmitt  of  San  Fran- 
cisco was  quick  to  the  fore  with  a  motion  that  the  bill 
be  considered  on  February  6.  This  delay  was  not  deemed 
advisable  by  the  proponents  of  the  measure.  Wyllie 
accordingly  moved  to  amend  the  motion,  by  making  the 
date  of  hearing  February  2. 

Coghlan  of  San  Francisco  thereupon  out-Schmitted 
Schmitt  by  moving  as  an  amendment  to  the  amendment 
that  the  hearing  be  on  February  8. 

The  straightening  of  this  tangle  required  three  roll 
calls.  Coghlan's  amendment  to  make  the  date  February 
8  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  15  to  49;  Wyllie's  amend- 
ment, fixing  the  hearing  for  February  2,  prevailed  by  a 
vote  of  43  to  26,  and,  as  amended  by  Wyllie,  the  motion 
was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  48  to  16.231 

The  outcome  of  this  skirmish  not  only  gave  the  Local 
Option  forces  the  advantage  of  early  consideration  of 
the  bill,  but  demonstrated  that  the  Assembly  was  over- 
whelmingly for  the  passage  of  a  Local  Option  measure. 

On  February  2  came  the  real  fight  against  the  meas- 
ure. The  first  attack,  and  the  most  important,  was  made 

331  The  vote  by  which  the  hearing  was  finally  set  for  February 
2  was  as  follows: 

Ayes — Beatty,  Beckett,  Benedict,  Bishop,  Bliss,  Bohnett,  Brown, 
Butler,  Cattell,  Clark,  Cogswell,  Cronin,  Crosby,  Farwell,  Flint, 
Freeman,  Gerdes,  Guill,  Hall,  Hamilton,  Harlan,  Held,  Hewitt, 
Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jasper,  Jones,  Joel,  Judson,  Kehoe,  Lamb,  Lynch, 
Maher,  Malone,  March,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Polsley,  Preisker,  Ran- 
dall, Rogers  of  Alameda,  Rosendale,  Smith,  Stevenot,  Telfer,  Wil- 
liams, Wyllie,  Young — 48. 

Noes — Callaghan,  Coghlan,  Cunningham,  Fitzgerald,  Griffin  of 
Modesto,  Kennedy,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco,  McDonald,  Mullally, 
Nolan,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco,  Ryan,  Sbragia,  Schmitt,  Tib- 
bits,  Wilson — 16. 


206  County  Unit  Defeated 

against  the  unit  of  prohibition.  Slater  of  Santa  Rosa 
offered  a  series  of  amendments  which  substituted  the 
township  for  the  county  unit. 

Although  seventy-six  out  of  eighty  members  were 
present,  Assemblyman  Coghlan  moved  that  the  doors  be 
locked  until  the  absentees  could  be  brought  in  by  the 
sergeant-at-arms  and  compelled  to  vote.  This  move  was 
defeated  by  a  vote  of  26  to  46.  This  compelled  imme- 
diate vote  on  Slater's  232  amendments.  The  amendments 
were  lost  by  a  vote  of  33  to  43.233 

This  was  the  test  vote  in  the  Assembly  on  the  Wyllie 
Local  Option  bill.  The  final  passage  of  the  measure  was 
little  more  than  a  formality.  Fiftyrsix  Assemblymen 
voted  for  it,  and  twenty  against  it.234 

232  Slater  voted  for  the  bill  on  its  final  passage.    At  his  request 
the  following  explanation  of  his  vote  was  printed  in  the  Journal: 

"I  intimated  to  members  of  the  committee  if  a  fair  amendment 
was  granted  that  would  enable  wineries  and  breweries  to  handle 
their  products  in  'dry'  territory  I  would  support  the  Wyllie  bill. 
An  amendment  eliminating  in  a  measure  the  drastic  provisions  of 
the  original  bill  having  been  adopted,  I  feel  it  incumbent  upon  me 
to  fulfill  my  word.  I  believe  firmly  that  the  provisions  of  the  bill 
are  still  too  drastic  and  should  be  amended,  and  my  amendment, 
asking  for  a  township  unit,  and  the  regulation  and  limiting  of  sa- 
loons should  in  all  fairness  have  prevailed." 

233  The  vote  on  Slater's  amendments  was  as  follows: 

For  the  amendments — Beatty,  Callaghan,  Denegri,  Feeley,  Gay- 
lord,  Griffin  of  Modesto,  Hayes,  Held,  Jones,  Joel,  Kennedy,  Lynch, 
Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco,  Maher,  Malone,  Mc- 
Donald, Mullally,  Nolan,  Rimlinger,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco, 
Rogers  of  Alameda,  Rosendale,  Ryan,  Sbragia,  Schmitt,  Slater, 
Stuckenbruck,  Sutherland,  Tibbitts,  Walker,  Walsh,  and  Wilson — 33. 

Against  the  amendments — Beckett,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Bishop, 
Bliss,  Bohnett,  Brown,  Butler,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Coghlan, 
Cogswell,  Cronin,  Crosby,  Farwell,  Fitzgerald,  Flint,  Freeman,  Grif- 
fiths, Guill,  Hall,  Hamilton,  Harlan,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jas- 
per, Judson,  Kehoe,  Lamb,  McGowan,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Polsley, 
Preisker,  Randall,  Smith,  Stevenot,  Telfer,  Williams,  Wyllie,  and 
Young — 43. 

28*  The  vote  by  which  the  Wyllie  Local  Option  bill  passed  the 
Senate  was  as  follows: 

For  the  bill — Beckett,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Bishop,  Bliss,  Bohnett, 
Brown,  Butler,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Coghlan,  Cogswell,  Cronin, 
Crosby,  Farwell,  Flint,  Freeman,  Gaylord,  Griffiths,  Guill,  Hall, 


County  Unit  Defeated  207 

Having  passed  the  Assembly,  the  Local  Option  bill 
went  to  the  Senate,  where,  in  the  regular  course  of 
legislative  business,  it  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Public  Morals. 

Before  that  committee,  the  saloon  people  contended 
for  three  principal  amendments: 

( 1 )  To  permit  the  storage  of  wine  in  "dry"  territory. 

(2)  To  permit  the  sale  of  "near-beer"  in  "dry"  terri- 
tory. 

(3)  To  substitute  the  township  for  the  county  unit. 
The  first  contention  was  allowed  by  the  committee, 

and  was  admitted  by  the  proponents  of  the  bill  to  be  a 
reasonable  demand.  The  second  and  third  contentions 
were  not  allowed.  The  committee  reported  the  bill  back 
to  the  Senate  with  the  recommendation  that  it  do  pass, 
and  its  opponents  carried  their  fight  against  it  to  the  floor 
of  the  Senate. 

As  in  the  Assembly,  the  clash  came  over  the  question 
of  unit. 

Senator  Juilliard  offered  a  series  of  amendments  to 
change  the  unit  from  county  to  township.  And  over 
these  amendments  the  debate  was  for  the  most  part  held. 

As  in  the  Assembly,  the  opponents  of  the  measure 
devoted  themselves  in  the  main  to  the  abuse  of  all  who 
supported  the  bill.  Senator  Wolfe  of  San  Francisco  was 
particularly  bitter  in  his  denunciation,  which  called  forth 

Hamilton,  Held,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Hlnshaw,  Jasper,  Jones,  Joel,  Jud- 
son,  Kehoe,  Lamb,  Lynch,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Maher,  Malone, 
McGowen,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Polsley,  Preisker,  Randall,  Rogers  of 
Alameda,  Rosendale,  Slater,  Smith,  Stevenot,  Stuckenbruck,  Suth- 
erland, Telfer,  Walker,  Williams,  Wilson,  Wyllie,  and  Young — 56. 

Against  the  bill — Beatty,  Callaghan,  Denegri,  Feeley,  Fitzgerald, 
Griffin  of  Modesto,  Harlan,  Hayes,  Kennedy,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco, 
McDonald,  Mullally,  Nolan,  Rimlinger,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco, 
Ryan,  Sbragia,  Schmitt,  Tibbits,  and  Walsh — 20. 


208  County  Unit  Defeated 

good-natured,  but  none  the  less  cutting  replies  from  the 
more  tolerant  supporters  of  the  measure.235 

Although  the  proponents  of  the  measure  had  three 
times  defeated  the  efforts  of  the  saloon  element  to  sub- 
stitute the  township  for  the  county  unit,  that  is  to  say, 
before  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Public  Morals,  on  the 
floor  of  the  Assembly,  and  before  the  Senate  Committee 
on  Public  Morals — in  the  fourth  and  last  contest,  the 
saloon  interests  carried  their  point. 

By  a  vote  of  23  to  17 236  the  Senate  adopted  Juilliard's 


235  "Senator  "Wolfe,"  observed  Senator  Estudillo  humorously,  in 
closing  the  debate,  "reminds  me  of  the  story  of  the  young  lawyer 
who  confessed  to  his  senior  that  he  had  neither  law  nor  facts  to 
support  his  case. 

"  'Then,'  replied  the  older  lawyer,   'give  the  other  fellows  hell.' 

"Senator  Wolfe,"  concluded  Estudillo,  "has  no  law  and  no  facts 
on  his  side.  He  has  therefore  given  my  poor  friends  who  support 
this  bill,  hell." 

But  it  remained  for  Senator  Larkins  to  demonstrate  the  absurd- 
ity of  "Wolfe's  arguments. 

"Senator  Wolfe  in  opposing  this  bill,"  said  Larkins,  "makes  a 
plea  for  the  home.  But  Senator  Wolfe  knows  that  the  saloon  de- 
stroys the  home.  All  we  ask  is  that  we  Americans  have  oppor- 
tunity to  say  to  the  men  who  are  destroying  our  homes:  'You 
shall  no  longer  dictate  to  us.' 

"Senator  Wolfe  has  asked,  What  is  the  matter  with  California? 

"In  reply,  I  would  say  that  California  has  been  cursed  with  two 
of  the  most  rotten  institutions  that  ever  cursed  a  State,  the  one  is 
the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  and  the  other  the  saloons.  That  is 
what  is  the  matter  with  California." 

Senator  Gates  expressed  amazement  that  a  gentleman  of  "six- 
teen years'  experience  in  the  Senate"  should  make  the  mistake  of 
proving  too  much. 

Wolfe  had  said  that  local  option  and  prohibition  increase  the 
consumption  of  liquor. 

"Then,"  demanded  Gates,  "if  local  option  and  prohibition  in- 
crease the  consumption  of  liquor,  why  are  the  liquor  interests  op- 
posing local  option  and  prohibition?" 

286  The  vote  on  Juilliard's  amendments  to  substitute  the  town- 
ship for  the  county  unit  was  as  follows: 

For  the  amendments — Beban,  Bills,  Blrdsall,  Bryant,  Burnett, 
Caminettl,  Cassidy,  Curtin,  Finn,  Hans,  Hare,  Holohan,  Kurd,  Juil- 
liard,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Rush,  Sanford,  Stetson,  Tyrrell,  Welch, 
Wolfe,  and  Wright— 23. 

Against  the  amendments — Avey,  Bell,  Black,  Boynton,  Campbell, 
Cartwright,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Rose- 
berry,  Shanahan,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  and  Walker — 17. 


County  Unit  Defeated  209 

amendments  to  substitute  the  township  for  the  county 
unit. 

Flushed  with  their  success,  the  opponents  of  the 
measure  proceeded  to  adopt  amendments  which  made  the 
bill  ridiculously  impractical. 

One  of  these  amendments,  adopted  by  a  vote  of  22  to 
18,  provided  no  less  than  six  questions  that  should  be 
submitted  to  the  electors  at  each  Local  Option  election, 
and  also  any  other  question  or  proposition  relating  to 
the  regulation  of  the  traffic  in  alcoholic  liquors  which 
the  qualified  electors  of  any  city,  or  town,  or  township 
might  desire  to  submit. 

One  of  the  six  questions  was :  "Shall  the  serving  of 
wines  and  beers  at  regular  meals  in  dining-rooms  of 
hotels  and  restaurants  be  permitted?" 

But  another  section  of  the  bill  as  amended  in  the 
Senate,  provided  that  "nothing  in  this  act  shall  prevent  or 
prohibit  the  serving  of  wines  or  beers  at  regular  meals 
in  the  dining-rooms  of  hotels  and  restaurants."237 

The  question  naturally  arises,  why  should  The  Peo- 
ple be  called  upon  to  vote  on  this  question,  if  the  pro- 
vision, in  the  event  of  the  vote  being  in  the  negative, 
could  not  be  enforced? 

Another  amendment  provided  that  liquors  should  not 
be  drunk  or  consumed  in  quantities  of  less  than  two  gal- 
lons.238 

Such  absurdities  could  be  multiplied.     Senator  Estu- 

237  See  Section  16,  last  paragraph  of  the  bill — Assembly  bill  37 — 
as  it  was  amended  in  the  Senate. 

238  The  exact  wording  of  this  provision  was:  "and  provided  fur- 
ther, that  none  of  said  liquors  so  sold  or  delivered  shall  be  drunk 
or  consumed  on  the  premises  where  sold  or  delivered,  nor  in  quan- 


2io  County  Unit  Defeated 

dillo,  leader  of  the  proponents  of  the  bill  in  the  Senate, 
described  the  amended  measure  as  a  "crazy  quilt  of  in- 
consistency." 

When  the  amended  bill  came  up  for  final  passage  in 
the  Senate,  the  supporters  of  the  measure  very  frankly 
stated  they  would  vote  for  it,  not  because  they  believed 
in  it,  but  in  order  to  have  it  sent  to  the  Assembly,  which 
body  could  be  counted  upon  not  to  concur  in  the  Senate 
amendments.239  As  in  the  Assembly  the  final  passage  of 
the  bill  in  the  Senate  was  a  mere  formality.  Thirty 
Senators  voted  for  it ;  only  three  voted  against  it.240 

The  Assembly,  without  a  dissenting  vote,  promptly 
concurred  in  the  Senate  committee  amendments  to  per- 
mit the  storage  of  liquors  in  "dry"  territory.  But  in  the 

titles  of  less  than  two  gallons."  See  lines  48  to  51  Inclusive,  Section 
16,  of  Assembly  bill  37  as  It  was  amended  In  the  Senate. 

Assemblyman  March  of  Sacramento,  when  the  question  of  con- 
currence In  the  Senate  amendments  was  before  the  Lower  House, 
stated  that  on  principle  he  Is  against  local  option,  but  would  fight 
against  any  measure  which  required  him  to  "drink  two  gallons 
of  booze  at  a  time,"  and  compel  him  to  go  on  to  the  street  to  do  It. 

239  When  an  Assembly  bill  is  amended  In  the  Senate  the  meas- 
ure  goes   back  to   the   Assembly.     If  the  Assembly  concur  In   the 
amendments,  that  settles  the  matter.     But  if  the  Assembly  refuse 
to  concur,  then  the  bill  goes  back  to  the  Senate,  where  that  body 
may  recede  from  its  amendments  or  refuse  to  recede. 

If  the  Senate  recede,  the  measure  goes  to  the  Governor  just  as  It 
passed  the  Assembly.  If  the  Senate  refuse  to  recede,  the  measure 
Is  referred  to  a  Conference  Committee  of  six,  three  appointed  by 
the  Speaker  of  the  Assembly  and  three  by  the  President  of  the 
Senate. 

The  Conference  Committee  may  consider  only  the  amendments 
adopted  by  the  Senate.  If  the  Conference  Committee  fail  to  agree, 
or  If  either  Senate  or  Assembly  reject  Its  report,  then  the  bill  goes 
to  a  Committee  on  Free  Conference.  The  Committee  on  Free  Con- 
ference is  permitted  to  make  any  amendment  it  sees  fit.  If  its 
report  be  rejected  by  either  Senate  or  Asserrfbly,  the  bill  gets  no 
further;  is  dead,  without  possibility  of  resurrection. 

240  The  vote  by  which  the  amended  Local  Option  bill  passed  the 
Senate  was  as  follows: 

For  the  bill— Beban,  Bell,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boynton,  Bryant, 
Campbell,  Cassldy,  Curtln,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Holo- 
han,  Hurd,  Juilliard,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Sanford, 
Shanahan,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  Walker,  Welch, 
Wolfe,  and  Wright — 30. 

Against  the  bill — Camlnetti,  Hare,  and  Regan — 3. 


County  Unit  Defeated  211 

absurd  amendments,  and  in  the  amendment  changing  the 
unit  of  prohibition  from  county  to  township,241  the  As- 
sembly refused  to  concur. 

This  threw  the  Local  Option  bill  back  into  the  Senate. 

At  once  a  most  interesting  parliamentary  situation 
was  created  which  involved  the  rulings  of  Mr.  Phil  Stan- 
ton,  when  at  the  session  of  1909  he  was  called  upon  to 
rule  on  the  question  of  dividing  the  Assembly  amend- 
ments to  the  Direct  Primary  bill.242 

The  1909  Direct  Primary  bill  had  been  amended  in 
the  Assembly.  Some  of  these  amendments  were  required 
to  correct  typographical  and  clerical  errors,  and  were 
known  as  the  "necessary  amendments."  Another  series 
of  amendments  struck  the  State-wide  plan  for  nominating 
United  States  Senators  from  the  bill,  and  substituted  the 
impractical  district  advisory  plan,  described  in  a  previous 
chapter.  This  second  series  was  known  as  the  "vicious 
amendments." 

Twenty-one  votes  in  the  Senate  were  required  for 
concurrence  in  the  amendments.  The  Senate  divided 

2*1  The  Assembly  vote  on  concurrence  in  the  Senate  amend- 
ments changing  the  unit  of  prohibition  from  county  to  township 
was  as  follows: 

To  concur  in  the  amendment  and  against  the  county  unit — Cal- 
laghan,  Coghlan,  Crosby,  Cunningham,  Denegri,  Feeley,  Fitzgerald, 
Gaylord,  Gerdes,  Griffin  of  Modesto,  Harlan,  Hayes,  Held,  Jones, 
Kennedy,  Lynch,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco,  Maher,  March,  McDonald, 
McGowen,  Mullally,  Nolan,  Rimlinger,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco, 
Rosendale,  Rutherford,  Ryan,  Sbragia,  Schmitt,  Slater,  Stucken- 
bruck,  Sutherland,  Tibbits,  Walsh,  and  Wilson — 36. 

Against  concurrence  in  the  amendment  and  for  the  county  unit — 
Beckett,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Bishop,  Bliss,  Bohnett,  Brown,  Butler, 
Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Cogswell,  Cronin,  Farwell,  Flint,  Freeman, 
Griffiths,  Guill,  Hamilton,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jasper,  Judson, 
Kehoe,  Lamb,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Polsley, 
Preisker,  Randall,  Rogers  of  Alameda,  Smith,  Stevenot,  Telfer,  Wil- 
liams, Wyllie,  and  Young — 39. 

242  For  an  account  of  the  events  which  led  up  to  Stanton's 
rulings  on  this  issue,  see  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of 
1909,  Chapter  XI. 


212  County  Unit  Defeated 

evenly  on  the  real  question  at  issue,  the  manner  of  nom- 
inating United  States  Senators.  The  absence  of  one 
State  Senator,  however,  prevented  the  evenly  divided 
vote  which  would  have  given  the  Lieutenant-Governor 
the  casting  vote. 

Those  Senators  who  opposed  the  so-called  "vicious 
amendments"  were  able  to  prevent  concurrence  in  them. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Senators  who  supported  the 
"vicious  amendments"  were  able  to  prevent  concurrence 
in  the  necessary  amendments  for  the  correction  of  typo- 
graphical and  clerical  errors. 

The  bill  went  back  to  the  Assembly.  It  was  generally 
conceded  that  the  Assembly  was  prepared  to  recede  from 
its  vicious  amendments,  but  it  could  not  recede  from  the 
"necessary  amendments"  correcting  typographical  and 
clerical  errors  without  leaving  defects  in  the  measure 
which  were  held  to  be  fatal. 

Speaker  Stanton  ruled  that  the  amendments  could  not 
be  divided,  that  the  Assembly  must  recede  from  them  all 
or  refuse  to  recede  from  them  all.243 

Under  this  ruling,  rather  than  leave  the  bill  defective, 
the  opponents  in  the  1909  Assembly  of  the  "vicious 
amendments"  were  compelled  to  vote  to  refuse  to  recede 
from  them. 


243  Speaking:  from  the  desk,  Stanton,  in  making  his  ruling,  said: 

"If  you  recede  from  some  of  these  amendments  and  not  from 
others  where  will  your  bill  be?  It  will  be  dead.  The  only  thing 
that  you  can  do  to  save  the  Direct  Primary  bill  now  is  to  recede 
from  all  the  amendments  and  let  the  typographical  errors  remain 
in  the  bill,  or  refuse  to  recede  from  any  of  the  amendments  and  let 
the  bill  go  into  conference.  If  you  recede  from  some  of  the  amend- 
ments and  not  from  others,  your  bill  is  dead.  We  cannot  send  this 
bill  back  to  the  Senate  saying  that  the  Assembly  has  receded  from 
some  of  the  amendments  and  not  from  others." 


County  Unit  Defeated  213 

The  same  situation  developed  in  the  1911  Legisla- 
ture over  the  Local  Option  bill. 

By  the  time  the  Local  Option  bill  came  back  to  the 
Senate,  the  absurd  amendments  that  have  been  referred 
to  were  well  understood.  The  better  element  of  the 
Senate  desired  to  recede  from  them,  but  enough  Senators 
held  out  against  receding  from  the  amendment  making 
the  unit  of  population  the  township,  to  make  recession 
from  that  amendment  doubtful.  But  by  compelling  a  vote 
on  all  the  amendments,  it  was  generally  believed  that  a 
majority  would  vote  to  recede  from  them  all.  This 
would  have  meant  the  passage  of  the  bill  in  the  effective 
form  in  which  it  had  passed  the  Assembly.  The  Stanton 
precedent  justified  such  ruling. 

The  attention  of  Lieutenant-Governor  Wallace,  who 
as  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  would  rule  on  this 
point,  was  called  to  the  Stanton  precedent.  It  was  de- 
cidedly to  the  interests  of  the  proponents  of  the  Local 
Option  bill  that  the  Stanton  precedent  be  followed.  Gov- 
ernor Wallace  was  among  the  strongest  of  the  propo- 
nents. At  the  time,  it  looked  as  though  the  passage  of  an 
effective  Local  Option  law  depended  upon  whether  the 
Lieutenant-Governor  follow  the  Stanton  precedent. 

Governor  Wallace,  however,  convinced  himself  that 
Stanton's  ruling  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  best 
parliamentary  usage. 

He  accordingly  overruled  the  Stanton  precedent,  hold- 
ing that  the  Senate  on  the  question  of  recession  could 
take  up  the  several  amendments  separately. 

This  was  done.  The  Senate  receded  from  some  of 
its  amendments,  but,  by  a  vote  of  18  to  21,  refused  to 


214  County  Unit  Defeated 

recede  from  the  amendment  which  made  the  township 
the  unit  of  prohibition.248 

This  action  threw  the  bill  into  a  Committee  on  Con- 
ference, to  be  appointed  by  President  Wallace  of  the 
Senate  and  Speaker  Hewitt  of  the  Assembly. 

President  Wallace  appointed  to  the  committee  Sen- 
ators Estudillo,  Stetson  and  Thompson. 

Speaker  Hewitt  appointed  Assemblymen  Wyllie, 
Slater  and  Schmitt. 

245  The  vote  by  which  the  Senate  refused  to  recede  from  its 
"township  amendment"  was  as  follows: 

For  receding  and  for  the  county  unit — Avey,  Bell,  Black,  Boyn- 
ton,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Lar- 
kins,  Lewis,  Roseberry,  Shanahan,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Walker, 
and  Wright— 18. 

Against  receding  and  for  the  township  unit — Beban,  Bills,  Bird- 
sail,  Bryant,  Burnett,  Caminetti,  Cassidy,  Curtin,  Finn,  Hans,  Hare, 
Holohan,  Hurd,  Juilliard,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Rush,  Sanford,  Stetson, 
Tyrrell,  and  Welch — 21. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 
SUPERVISORIAL  DISTRICT  UNIT  ADOPTED. 

Proponents  of  the  Local  Option  Bill  Proposed  the  Super- 
visorial District  as  Substitute  for  the  County  and  the 
To^vnsh^p.  The  Opposition,  in  Resisting  This  Com- 
promise, Was  Overwhelmingly  Defeated. 

The  proceedings  of  the  Conference  Committee  on  the 
Local  Option  bill  were  opened  with  a  suggestion  from 
Committeeman  Schmitt,  who  was  opposing  Local  Op- 
tion, that  the  meeting  be  executive;  that  is  to  say,  that 
representatives  of  the  press  be  excluded  and  the  hearing 
be  held  behind  closed  doors.246 

Senator  Estudillo  opposed  such  procedure.  A  major- 
ity of  the  committee  decided  that  the  best  interests  of  the 
State  would  not  suffer  if  the  hearing  were  open  to  the 
public. 

The  Conference  Committee  was  limited  to  considera- 
tion of  the  amendments  to  the  bill  which  were  in  dispute 
between  the  two  houses. 

On  the  unit  of  prohibition  the  committee  divided 
evenly.  Senators  Estudillo  and  Thompson,  and  Assem- 
blyman Wyllie  stood  firmly  for  the  county  unit.  Senator 

246  Most  of  the  meetings  of  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Public 
Morals,  when  the  Local  Option  bill  was  under  consideration,  were 
executive,  Invariably  at  the  request  of  opponents  of  the  bill.  It 
is  noticeable  that  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  requests  for  executive 
sessions  come  from  men  who  oppose  the  passage  of  desirable 
measures,  or  support  the  passage  of  bad. 


216     Supervisorial  District  Unit  Adopted 

Stetson,  and  Assemblymen  Schmitt  and  Slater  were  as 
insistent  for  the  township  unit.  As  agreement  was  rec- 
ognized to  be  impossible,  the  committees  so  reported  to 
their  respective  houses,  and  were  discharged. 

This  brought  the  Local  Option  bill  to  the  last  possible 
stage  of  legislative  consideration,  the  Free  Conference 
Committee.  If  such  committee  failed  to  agree  in  a  re- 
port, or  if  either  House  should  reject  its  report,  the  Local 
Option  bill  could  not  be  enacted  into  law. 

Immediately  the  Conference  Committee  had  reported 
its  inability  to  agree,  the  opponents  of  the  bill  began 
one  of  the  most  remarkable  technical  fights  against  the 
measure  ever  attempted  in  the  California  Legislature. 

The  first  move  was  to  secure  control  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Free  Conference.  A  majority  of  the  Senate 
had  voted  for  the  township  unit.  The  extraordinary 
procedure  was  proposed — and  was  a  matter  of  general 
gossip  about  the  State  Capital  on  the  night  before  the 
Free  Conference  Committee  was  appointed — that  the 
Senate  majority  that  opposed  the  county  unit  take  the 
appointment  of  the  committee  out  of  the  hands  of  Pres- 
ident Wallace,  and  the  majority  itself  name  the  com- 
mittee. Such  a  move  would  have  been  in  direct  viola- 
tion of  the  Senate  and  Assembly  joint  rules.247  But 
the  plan  was  considered  of  sufficient  importance  to  be 
made  subject  of  special  dispatches  to  the  morning  papers 
of  March  9. 

When  the  Senate  convened  on  the  morning  of  the 

247  Joint  Rule  12  provided  that  a  committee  on  conference  shall 
"consist  of  six  members,  three  to  be  appointed  by  the  President  of 
the  Senate,  and  three  by  the  Speaker  of  the  Assembly."  Joint  Rule 
14  provided  that  "a  Committee  on  Free  Conference  shall  consist  of 
six  members,  to  be  appointed  in  the  same  manner  as  a  Committee 
on  Conference." 


Supervisorial  District  Unit  Adopted     217 

9th,  the  request  was  made  of  President  Wallace  that  he 
appoint  on  the  committee  Senators  Stetson,  Martinelli 
and  Sanford.  These  gentlemen  had  all  opposed  the 
county  unit.  But  this  request  was  not  pressed.  How- 
ever, when  Senator  Estudillo  moved  that  a  Committee 
on  Free  Conference  be  appointed,  Senator  Juilliard 
moved  as  a  substitute  that  in  appointing  such  committee 
the  President  be  most  respectfully  requested  "to  follow 
the  former  precedent 24S  of  this  Senate  and  to  select  for 
such  committee  two  Senators  who  voted  with  the  ma- 
jority and  one  Senator  who  voted  with  the  minority 
when  said  bill  was  heretofore  considered  in  this  body." 

Later  on  Juilliard  asked  unanimous  consent  to  with- 
draw his  substitute  motion,  which  was  granted.  Juilliard 
then  made  a  request  of  the  President  that  two  of 
the  three  Senators  to  be  appointed  to  the  committee 
be  men  recorded  against  the  county  unit,  and  for  the 
township  unit.249 

This  extraordinary  move  brought  protest  from 
Thompson. 

"To  comply  with  the  Senator's  request,"  said  Thomp- 
son, "would  overturn  a  rule  of  this  body.  I  do  not  wish 
to  see  this  bill  jeopardized  by  an  irregular  course.  I 
want  the  record  to  be  kept  straight." 

2*8  Under  machine  rule,  Conference  and  Free  Conference  com- 
mittees, where  there  was  some  material  point  in  issue,  were  made 
up  of  machine  members  only.  The  "precedent"  to  which  Senator 
Juilliard  referred,  if  there  ever  were  such  a  precedent,  had  long 
since  been  swept  away. 

249  Juilliard's  request  was  as  follows:  "That  the  President  of 
the  Senate  be  and  he  is  hereby  most  respectfully  requested  to  fol- 
low the  former  precedent  of  this  Senate  and  the  usual  custom  in 
the  premises  and  that  he  select,  on  the  free  conference  committee 
In  reference  to  Assembly  Bill  No.  37,  two  Senators  who  voted  with 
the  majority  and  one  Senator  who  voted  with  the  minority  when 
said  bill  was  heretofore  considered  in  this  body." 


218     Supervisorial  District  Unit  Adopted 

"You  can  not,"  said  Senator  Cutten,  who  followed 
Thompson,  "do  by  indirection  what  you  can  not  do  by 
direct  attack.  Why  put  the  President  of  this  Senate  in  a 
position  of  setting  aside  the  rules  of  this  Legislature? 
The  Senate  should  crush  the  attempt  to  tie  his  hands  in 
this  way." 

The  weakness  of  Juilliard's  position  was  apparent. 
Nevertheless,  members  who  were  supporting  the  town- 
ship unit  idea  insisted  that  Juilliard's  request  be  regarded 
as  a  "petition." 

Very  calmly  and  convincingly,  Thompson  proceeded 
to  show  that  the  custom  in  the  past  has  not  been,  as 
Juilliard  intimated,  to  appoint  one  member  of  a  Free 
Conference  Committee  from  the  minority  and  two  from 
the  majority.  With  the  Senate  journals  of  past  sessions 
before  him,  Thompson  showed  that  when  the  old-time 
machine,  the  remnants  of  which  were  opposing  the 
passage  of  a  practical  Local  Option  bill,  controlled  the 
Senate,  all  the  Senate  members  of  Free  Conference 
Committees  were  appointed  from  that  side  which  the  ma- 
chine element  was  supporting. 

As  an  example  fresh  in  the  minds  of  many  of  the 
Senators,  the  Free  Conference  Committee  which  in  1909 
decided  the  fate  of  the  Direct  Primary  bill  was  cited. 
This  Committee,  consisting  of  Senators  Wolfe,  Wright 
and  Leavitt,  was  made  up  of  Senators  who  had  voted  on 
one  side  of  the  question  at  issue.230 

Before  appointing  the  committee,  President  Wallace 
gave  a  statement,  which  made  his  own  position  clear, 

280  See  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909.  Incidentally, 
the  1911  Legislature  undid  the  work  of  the  1909  Free  Conference 
Committee  in  question. 


Supervisorial  District  Unit  Adopted     219 

and  at  the  same  time  demonstrated  the  weakness  of 
Juilliard's  contention.  He  then  appointed  Senators  Estu- 
dillo,  Stetson  and  Thompson  to  represent  the  Senate  on 
the  Committee.251 

251  President  Wallace's  statement  was  as  follows: 

"The  chair  craves  the  indulgence  of  the  Senate  to  make  a  state- 
ment. Uniform  courtesy  has  characterized  the  relations  of  this 
Senate  with  its  President  during  every  day  of  this  session. 

"When  it  became  the  duty  of  your  President  to  name  a  Con- 
ference Committee  on  this  Local  Option  bill,  only  one  Senator  be- 
longing to  the  majority  made  a  suggestion  regarding  the  make-up 
of  the  committee,  and  he  asked  that  the  majority  be  recognized, 
and  named  a  Senator  whom  he  thought  would  be  a  suitable  mem- 
ber of  that  majority. 

"The  chair  in  selecting  the  Conference  Committee  did  recognize 
the  majority  as  suggested,  and  appointed  one  of  its  strongest  mem- 
bers. 

"In  recognizing  both  sides,  the  chair  departed  from  a  precedent 
in  a  well  established  case  of  the  session  of  1909.  The  Direct  Pri- 
mary law  was  in  question.  There  had  been  many  votes  in  the 
Senate  and  finally  the  bill  was  ordered  to  a  Conference  Committee. 
It  was  well  recognized  that  the  Senate  stood  20  to  20,  but  one 
Senator  was  absent  and  the  final  vote  stood  20  to  19. 

"The  President  appointed  the  committee  entirely  from  the  ma- 
jority and  gave  no  representation  whatever  to  the  19,  even  though 
the  19  was  a  minority  in  the  vote  only  but  not  actually  so  in  the 
Senate. 

"If  further  precedent  is  desired,  the  chair  finds  that  in  the 
session  of  1911  (the  present  session),  when  it  became  the  duty  of 
the  Speaker  of  the  Assembly  to  appoint  a  Conference  Committee 
on  this  very  Local  Option  measure,  he  selected  one  from  the  ma- 
jority and  two  from  the  minority.  And  the  chair  has  yet  to  hear 
of  any  fault  found  with  the  Speaker's  action. 

"In  the  government  of  the  State  of  California,  there  are  two 
branches  of  the  Legislature,  the  Governor  of  the  State,  the  Lieu- 
tenant-Governor  and  other  officers.  In  the  election  campaign  ending 
last  November,  and  resulting  in  the  election  of  these  State  officers, 
there  was  injected  into  the  contest  for  Lieutenant-Governor,  not 
in  any  degree  by  your  President  but  wholly  by  those  organizations 
and  interests  that  were  opposed  to  him,  this  very  liquor  question. 
And  in  the  last  days  of  the  campaign  this  was  made  the  pre-emi- 
nent issue  before  the  people  of  this  State  in  relation  to  the  election 
of  Lieutenant-Governor.  Those  who  brought  this  issue  before  The 
People  were  defeated,  and  those  who  supported  the  present  Lieuten- 
ant-Governor because  of  l^'s  well-known  principles  on  the  liquor 
question,  and  fought  in  every  quarter  of  the  State  for  him  because 
he  holds  these  principles,  will  now  demand  that  in  so  far  as  he  is 
to  represent  legislation  on  this  question  he  shall  while  representing 
the  whole  State  at  least  give  earnest  and  due  consideration  to 
their  well-known  views.  The  liquor  interests  in  injecting  this  issue 
into  the  campaign  made  it  in  effect  a  part  of  the  platform  of  your 
President,  and  that  without  his  seeking. 

"In  view,  therefore,  of  all  the  facts  in  the  case,  and  not  for- 
getting the  courteous  suggestions  from  members  of  this  Senate 
whose  views  differ  from  those  of  your  President,  I  appoint  on  this 
Free  Conference  Committee  on  Senate  Bill  37  (the  Local  Option 
bill)  Senators  Estudillo,  Stetson  and  Thompson." 


22O     Supervisorial  District  Unit  Adopted 

Speaker  Hewitt  named  Assemblymen  Cronin,  Ran- 
dall and  Rosendale  as  the  Assembly  members  of  the 
Committee. 

The  Committee  at  its  first  meeting  stood  two  for  the 
township  unit,  Stetson  and  Rosendale,  and  four  for  the 
county  unit,  Estudillo,  Thompson,  Randall  and  Cronin. 

After  several  fruitless  sessions,  Senator  Thompson 
offered  a  compromise,  that  both  the  county  and  the  town- 
ship unit  be  discarded,  and  the  Supervisorial  district  be 
made  the  unit  of  prohibition. 

Senator  Estudillo  and  Assemblymen  Randall  and 
Cronin,  all  of  whom  were  supporting  the  county  unit, 
signified  their  willingness  to  accept  this  compromise. 
But  Senator  Stetson  and  Assemblyman  Rosendale,  who 
were  insisting  upon  the  township  unit,  refused  to  accept 
Senator  Thompson's  suggestion,  although  both  Senator 
Stetson  and  Mr.  Rosendale  assured  their  colleagues  that 
rather  than  see  the  Local  Option  bill  defeated,  they 
would,  on  the  floor  of  their  respective  Houses,  vote  for 
such  report  as  the  majority  of  the  Committee  might 
agree  upon,  making  the  Supervisorial  district  the  unit  of 
prohibition. 

The  Committee  finally  reported  to  Senate  and  Assem- 
bly recommending  that  the  unit  of  prohibition  be  made 
the  Supervisorial  district. 

The  report  was  signed  "Estudillo,  Thompson,  Senate 
Committee  on  Free  Conference ;  Randall,  Cronin,  Assem- 
bly Committee  on  Free  Conference.  We  do  not  concur, 
Rosendale,  Stetson." 

Members  of  saloon  lobby  thereupon  proceeded  to  re- 
sist the  Supervisorial  district  unit,  as  strongly  as  they 


Supervisorial  District  Unit  Adopted     221 

had  resisted  the  township  unit.  It  was  quite  evident, 
however,  that  the  report  would  be  overwhelmingly 
adopted  in  the  Assembly,  and  that  the  necessary  twenty- 
one  votes  in  the  Senate  for  its  adoption  by  that  body  were 
assured.252 

It  soon  developed,  however,  that  the  opponents  of  the 
bill,  with  Wolfe  at  their  head  in  the  Senate  and  Schmitt 
at  their  head  in  the  Assembly,  would  oppose  a  vote  being 
taken  on  the  report  on  the  ground  that,  inasmuch  as  the 
report  was  not  unanimous,  the  incident  of  the  Local 
Option  bill  had  been  closed  by  the  failure  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Committee  to  agree.  The  position  taken 
by  the  opposition  was  that  the  measure  had,  because  of 
this  lack  of  unanimity,  been  defeated  in  the  Free  Con- 
ference Committee.  They  based  their  contention  upon 
Rule  14  of  the  Senate  and  Assembly  Joint  Rules,  which 
provided  that  "the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Free  Con- 
ference shall  not  be  subject  to  amendment  in  either 
House,  and  in  case  of  non-agreement 253  no  further  pro- 
ceedings shall  be  had." 

The  opposition  contended  that    the    section    meant 

252  Senator  Stetson,   in   the  Committee  on  Free  Conference,  on 
the  night  that  the  Supervisorial  District  unit  was  decided  upon,  esti- 
mated  that  twenty-one   Senators  would  vote  for  it,   that  fourteen 
were    absolutely    against    It,    while    five    were    doubtful.     Senator 
Stetson's  estimate  was  as  follows: 

For  the  Supervisorial  District  unit — Avey,  Bell,  Birdsall,  Black, 
Boynton,  Campbell,  Cartwrlght,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Gates,  Hewitt, 
Holohan,  Larkins,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Shanahan,  Stetson,  Strobridge, 
Thompson,  Walker,  Wright — 21. 

Against  Supervisorial  District  unit — Beban,  Bryant,  Camlnetti, 
Cassidy,  Curtin,  Finn,  Hans,  Hare,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Sanford, 
Tyrrell,  Welch,  Wolfe— 14. 

Doubtful — Bills,  Burnett,  Hurd,  Juilliard,   Lewis — 5. 

253  That  Senator  Stetson  or  Assemblyman  Rosendale,  whose  non- 
concurring   signatures   made    this    move   possible,    had   any   part  in 
this   technical   play  to   defeat   the   Local    Option   bill,    no   informed 
person    for    a   moment    believes.     The    two    gentlemen,    when    they 
heard  of  the  opposition's  new  move,  expressed  willingness  to  concur 
with  the  majority  of  the  committee  in   recommending  the   Super- 
visorial  District   unit.     Both   men   voted   for    the    adoption    of    the 
committee's  report. 


222     Supervisorial  District  Unit  Adopted 

unanimous  agreement;  that  failure  of  unanimous  agree- 
ment meant  non-agreement.  As  the  Committee  on  Free 
Conference  had  failed  of  unanimous  agreement,  the  op- 
ponents of  the  measure  contended  there  was  a  non- 
agreement,  and  that  under  the  rules  no  further  proceed- 
ings could  be  had.254 

Senator  Wolfe  raised  this  point  in  the  Senate  and 
Mr.  Schmitt  in  the  Lower  House.  In  both  Senate  and 
Assembly  the  technical  point  was  overruled,  both  Presi- 
dent Wallace  255  and  Speaker  Hewitt  holding  with  the 

254  In  raising  this  point,  Senator  Wolfe,  a  thorough  parliamen- 
tarian,  apparently  lost  sight  of  the   fact  that   Gushing,   Reed  and 
Hinds,  accepted  authorities  on  the  subject,   are  practically  agreed 
that  a  Committee  of  Conference  is  not  a  heterogeneous  body,  acting 
as  one  committee,  but  two  committees,    each  of  which  acts  by  a 
majority.     The  same  rules  necessarily  govern  in  a  Free  Conference 
Committee.     Reed  holds   that  when  two  legislative   bodies   have  a 
conference,  it  is  a  free  conference. 

255  President  Wallace's  opinion  was  particularly  exhaustive.    He 
said: 

"The  joint  rules  of  the  Senate  and  Assembly  do  not  provide  for 
'unanimous'  agreement  of  the  Committees  of  Free  Conference.  If 
one  vote  in  a  committee  could  determine  all  action,  the  Legislature 
would  thus  abdicate  its  legislative  functions  in  favor  of  one  member. 

"That  part  of  Section  14,  of  the  Joint  Rules  which  reads:  'And 
In  case  of  non-agreement  no  further  proceedings  shall  be  had,'  was 
designed  solely  to  limit  the  number  of  Free  Conference  Committee 
to  one. 

"Cushing's  Law  and  Practice  of  Legislative  Assemblies,  Sec. 
2267,  says: 

"  'A  Committee  of  Conference  is  not  a  heterogeneous  body,  act- 
Ing  as  one  committee,  but  two  committees,  each  of  which  acts  by 
a  majority.' 

"  'Reed's  Rules,"  Sec.  242,  say:  'When  two  legislative  bodies  in 
this  country  have  a  conference,  it  is  a  free  conference.'  Bearing 
this  statement  in  mind,  Sec.  244  says:  'The  report  of  a  Conference 
Committee  must  be  in  writing  and  signed  by  those  agreeing  there- 
to, and  must  have  the  signatures  of  a  majority  of  the  representa- 
tives of  each  House.' 

"  'Hinds'  Precedents'  is  an  authoritative  American  work  on  Par- 
liamentary Law.  It  gives  numerous  instances  of  a  Conference  Com- 
mittee report  being  received  and  acted  on  by  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, even  when  such  report  is  signed  by  a  minority,  with 
the  notation  'I  dissent.' 

"Gushing  says,  in  Sec.  839:  'In  a  free  conference,  they  are  at 
liberty,  and  it  is  their  duty,  to  urge  their  own  arguments,  to  offer 
and  combat  objections,  and,  in  short,  to  attempt,  by  personal  per- 
suasion and  argument  to  effect  an  agreement  between  the  two 
Houses.' 

"Obviously  it  would  be  absurd  to  hamper  the  execution  of  that 
duty  by  a  requirement  of  unanimous  agreement  in  a  report." 


Supervisorial  District  Unit  Adopted     223 

authorities  that  agreement  of  a  majority  of  each  of  the 
two  groups  (Senate  and  Assembly)  which  constituted 
the  committee  was  an  agreement  under  the  rules. 

The  opponents  of  the  measure  in  the  Assembly  ac- 
cepted this  ruling  as  their  final  defeat.  The  Assembly 
adopted  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Free  Conference 
by  a  vote  of  51  to  2 1.256 

But  the  defeated  opponents  of  the  bill  yielded  less 
gracefully  in  the  Senate. 

In  the  Senate,  Wolfe,  having  lost  his  principal  point 
of  order,  raised  the  second  point  that  the  Supervisorial 
district  provision  of  the  bill  was  "entirely  unconstitu- 
tional," for  the  reason  that  some  counties  of  the  State 
have  no  Supervisorial  districts. 

In  ruling  against  Wolfe's  second  objection,  President 
Wallace  took  occasion  to  remind  Wolfe  that  the  three 
Senate  members  of  the  Committee  are  lawyers,  and  quite 
competent  to  pass  upon  the  constitutionality  of  the 
measure. 

Senator  Cutten  raised  a  laugh  by  asking  Wolfe 
whether  he  desired  a  more  stringent  Local  Option  bill. 

But  it  remained  for  Senator  Estudillo  to  answer 
Wolfe's  argument  most  effectively. 


256  The  Assembly  vote  on  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Free 
Conference  was  as  follows: 

For  the  report — Beckett,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Bliss,  Bohnett, 
Brown,  Butler,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Cogswell,  Cronin,  Crosby, 
Farwell,  Flint,  Freeman,  Gaylord,  Griffiths,  Guill,  Hamilton,  Harlan, 
Held,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jasper,  Jones,  Joel,  Judson,  Kehoe, 
Lamb,  Lynch,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Maher,  McGowen,  Mendenhall, 
Mott,  Polsley,  Preisker,  Randall,  Rogers  of  Alameda,  Rosendale, 
Slater,  Smith,  Stevenot,  Sutherland,  Telfer,  Williams,  Wilson,  Wyl- 
lie,  and  Young — 51. 

Against  the  report — Beatty,  Callaghan,  Coghlan,  Cunningham, 
Denegri,  Feeley,  Fitzgerald,  Gerdes,  Hayes,  Kennedy,  Lyon  of  San 
Francisco,  Malone,  McDonald,  Mullally,  Nolan,  Rimlinger,  Rodgers 
of  San  Francisco,  Rutherford,  Ryan,  Sbragia,  and  Schmitt — 21. 


224     Supervisorial  District  Unit  Adopted 

"Senator  Wolfe,"  said  Estudillo,  "has  shown  a  strange 
solicitude  for  this  bill.  Why  does  Senator  Wolfe  have 
such  concern  for  its  constitutionality?  If  the  measure 
is  unconstitutional,  it  will  not  hurt  Senator  Wolfe's 
friends.  The  Liquor  Interests  will  not  be  hurt  if  the  bill 
be  found  unconstitutional.  Why  this  concern  about  its 
constitutionality  ? 

"These  men  are  not  concerned  about  the  bill's  con- 
stitutionality. They  have  raised  the  point  of  constitu- 
tionality to  defeat  the  bill.  I  understand  that  last  night 
orders  went  out  to  fight  the  bill  on  the  floor  of  this 
Senate." 

"You  do  not  mean  to  say  that  I  received  orders," 
broke  in  Wolfe. 

"Oh,  no,  Senator  Wolfe,"  replied  Estudillo  with  a 
smile,  "of  course  I  do  not  mean  you." 

"Some  reverend  gentlemen,"  went  on  Estudillo,  after 
the  laughter  subsided,  "have  been  accused  of  lobbying 
for  this  bill.  These  men  are  citizens  of  this  State.  They 
have  as  much  right  to  speak  for  this  bill,  as  represent- 
atives of  the  Royal  Arch  or  the  liquor  interests  have  to 
speak  against  it.  When  the  measure  was  pending  before 
the  Assembly,  I  saw  representatives  of  the  liquor  inter- 
ests prancing  about  the  floor  against  it." 

The  Senate  adopted  the  report  of  the  Committee  in 
Free  Conference  by  a  vote  of  28  to  12.257 

257  The  Senate  vote  on  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Free  Conference  was  as  follows: 

For  the  report — Avey,  Bell,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boynton,  Campbell, 
Cartwrlght,  Curtin,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Holohan, 
Kurd,  Jullllard,  Larklns,  Lewis,  Martinelll,  Roseberry,  Rush,  San- 
ford,  Shanahan,  Stetson,  Strobrldge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  Walker, 
and  Wright— 28. 

Against  the  report — Beban,  Bills,  Bryant,  Burnett,  Camlnettl, 
Cassidy,  Finn,  Hans,  Hare,  Regan,  Welch,  and  Wolfe — 12. 


Supervisorial  District  Unit  Adopted     225 

The  measure  then  went  to  Governor  Johnson  for  his 
approval. 

The  proponents  of  Local  Option  declare  the  bill  as 
it  finally  passed  to  be  a  most  satisfactory  measure, 
holding  that  in  effect  the  Supervisorial  district  unit  does 
not  differ  materially  from  the  county  unit. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 
LABOR  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE.258 

So-called  Labor  Measures  Were  Given  Consideration 
Which  Under  Machine  Rule  Had  Been  Dodged  or 
Denied. 

The  report  of  the  California  State  Federation  of 
Labor 259  on  the  measures  opposed  and  supported  by  La- 

258  In  addition  to  the  labor  measures  considered  In  this  and 
the  five  following1  chapters,  the  following  measures  which  had 
the  support  of  the  Labor  representatives  at  Sacramento  became 
laws. 

A.  B.  388  (McDonald)  for  the  better  protection  of  the  Union 
Label. 

A.  B.  547  (Ryan)  empowering  the  Labor  Commissioner  to  en- 
force the  Upholsterers'  Shoddy  law. 

A.  B.  240  (Griffin)  providing  that  all  children  within  certain 
age  limits  must  attend  school. 

A.    B.    1305    (Young)    defining   duties   of   probation   officers. 

S.  B.  31  (Welch)  providing  for  local  inspection  of  weights  and 
measures.  State  inspection  is  provided  in  Senate  Constitutional 
Amendment  No.  2,  which  was  submitted  to  the  people  for  rati- 
fication. 

A.  B.  278  (Kehoe)  changing  the  policy  of  the  old  law  so  that 
contractors  and  material  men  are  given  a  direct  lien  upon  the 
property. 

A.  B.  836  (Coghlan)  compelling  contractors  and  builders  to 
provide  for  temporary  floors  in  buildings  more  than  two  stories 
high,  in  course  of  construction. 

A.  B.  1328  (Clark)  providing  that  physicians  treating  patients 
suffering  from  occupational  diseases  shall  notify  the  State  Board  of 
Health. 

A.  B.  821  (Bliss)  appropriating  $5000  to  be  used  by  the  State 
Board  of  Health  In  investigating  the  prevalence  of  tuberculosis. 

S.  B.  1221  (Burnett)  providing  improved  conditions  in  tenement 
houses. 

The  votes  by  which  the  principal  measures  considered  in  this 
chapter  were  passed  or  defeated  will  be  found  in  the  appendix, 
in  the  table  on  Labor  votes. 

2«9  The  report  is  signed  by  D.  D.  Sullivan,  president,  and 
Paul  Scharrenberg,  secretary-treasurer,  California  State  Federa- 
tion of  Labor;  L.  B.  Leavitt,  Theo.  Johnson,  legislative  agents. 


Labor  and  the  Legislature  227 

bor  representatives  at  the  1911  California  Legislature, 
shows  that  of  forty-nine  bills  advocated  by  Labor,  thirty- 
nine  were  passed.  Among  the  measures  which  had  the 
support  of  Labor  were  the  amendments  to  the  1909  Direct 

California  State  Federation  of  Labor;  Eugene  A.  Clancy,  legisla- 
tive agent,  State  Building  Trades  Council  of  California. 

The  Coast  Seamen's  Journal,  one  of  the  ablest  Union  Labor 
journals  published,  in  commenting  on  this  report  in  its  issue  of 
April  19,  1911,  says:  "The  legislative  report  of  the  California  State 
Federation  of  Labor,  published  in  this  issue,  is  the  most  remark- 
able, and  at  the  same  time  most  gratifying,  not  to  say  aston- 
ishing, document  of  the  kind  ever  issued  by  a  labor  organiza- 
tion. Thirty-nine  bills  passed  out  of  a  possible  forty-nine  bills! 

"Mark  the  contrast  with  the  usual  report  on  labor  legisla- 
tion. Usually  the  labor  movement  considers  itself  fortunate 
when  it  can  record  an  even  break  as  between  the  number  of  bills 
passed  and  defeated.  Quite  frequently  the  labor  movement  is 
compelled  to  make  the  best  of  a  mere  scrap  of  legislation — to 
magnify  the  importance  of  one  or  two  bills  passed  out  of  pity 
or  for  mere  decency's  sake.  Not  infrequently  we  are  forced  to 
acknowledge  utter  and  absolute  failure. 

"Such  has  been  the  experience  of  California  in  the  past,  and 
such  is  the  experience  of  many  other  States  up  to  the  present 
time.  The  record  of  the  recent  Legislature  of  California  is 
epochal,  even  revolutionary.  That  record  will  long  stand  as  an 
example  to  other  legislative  bodies  and  an  inspiration  to  the  la- 
bor movement  of  the  whole  country. 

"The  conditions  making  for  the  present  success  are  easily 
seen  and  understood.  California  throughout  her  history  has  been 
ruled  and  ridden  by  a  gigantic  and  greedy  corporation,  the  South- 
ern Pacific  Railroad.  The  State  Legislature,  even  the  smallest 
town  council,  has  been  but  the  mouthpiece  of  the  'S.  P.,'  regis- 
tering the  will  of  that  corporation.  In  a  word,  the  State  was 
but  a  plantation,  the  people  were  so  many  'hands,'  and  the  bosses 
and  officials  so  many  overseers. 

"This  situation  reached  its  logical  climax  in  the  concentra- 
tion of  public  opinion  upon  a  platform  which,  as  interpreted  by 
the  leader  of  the  anti-Railroad  forces,  meant  simply  'kick  the 
Southern  Pacific  out  of  politics.'  This  accomplished,  everything 
else  would  be  easy  of  achievement.  Anything  less  than  this 
would  result  merely  in  Dead  Sea  fruit — in  utter  failure. 

"Hiram  W.  Johnson  was  elected  Governor  and  with  him  was 
elected  a  Legislature  pledged  to  the  policy  he  so  clearly  enun- 
ciated. The  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  was  'kicked  out  of  poli- 
tics.' The  Railroad  lobby  was  no  longer  a  dominant  force  at 
Sacramento.  The  members  of  the  Legislature  were  free  to  keep 
their  pledges  to  the  people,  to  vote  as  their  consciences  dictated. 
If  they  needed  advice  they  knew  where  to  look  for  it.  Governor 
Johnson  was  not  only  against  the  Railroad;  he  was  for  the  peo- 
ple; he  was  against  the  Railroad  because  he  was  for  the  people. 
The  Railroad  was  out  and  the  people  were  in.  The  success  of  la- 
bor in  the  recent  Legislature  of  California  lies  in  the  success 
of  the  people  of  the  State  in  ridding  themselves  of  the  domina- 
tion of  their  chief  and  only  enemy — a  great  public -service  cor- 
poration. We  congratulate  the  people!" 


228  Labor  and  the  Legislature 

Primary  law,  which  give  The  People  of  California  a 
practical  State-wide  vote  for  United  States  Senator;  the 
Initiative  and  Referendum  amendment,  and  the  Boynton 
bill,  which  restored  the  Australian  ballot  to  its  original 
simplicity  and  effectiveness,  and  took  the  Judiciary  out  of 
politics.260  In  according  support  to  such  fundamental 
reforms,  the  Labor  representatives  at  Sacramento  demon- 
strated that  intelligent  Labor  leaders  are  alive  to  the  fact 


260  It  Is  Interesting  to  note  that  with  possibly  one  exception 
these  reforms  would  have  been  realized  in  1909,  had  it  not  been 
for  the  adverse  votes  of  Senators  and  Assemblymen  who  had 
been  elected  with  the  endorsement  of  the  so-called  Union  Labor 
Party. 

Thus  the  plan  for  a  "state-wide  vote"  for  United  States  Sen- 
ator, as  contained  in  the  original  1909  Direct  Primary  bill,  which, 
while  not  so  good  as  the  Oregon  plan,  would  at  least  have  given 
The  People  a  voice  in  the  selection  of  Federal  Senators,  was  de- 
feated in  the  Assembly  by  one  vote,  while  a  single  vote  would 
have  carried  it  in  the  Senate.  In  the  Senate,  six  members  who 
had  Union  Labor  endorsements — Finn,  Hare,  Hartman,  Reilly, 
Welch  and  Wolfe — voted  against  the  State-wide  plan.  In  the 
Assembly,  twelve  members  who  had  been  nominated  by  the 
Union  Labor  Party,  voted  against  the  State-wide  plan.  They 
were  Beatty,  Behan,  Black,  Coghlan.  Cullen,  Feeley,  Johnston  of 
Contra  Costa,  Macauley,  Nelson,  O'Neil,  Ferine  and  Pugh.  Had 
only  one  of  these  Assemblymen  voted  for  the  State-wide  plan, 
the  so-called  machine  amendments  to  the  Direct  Primary  bill 
would  have  been  defeated,  and  The  People  of  California  given  a 
State-wide  vote  for  United  States  Senator. 

At  the  1909  session,  the  Initiative  amendment  was  defeated 
in  the  Senate.  Senator  Wolfe  led  the  fight  against  it.  He  and 
Senator  Hartman  voted  against  it.  Senator  Finn  was  not  pres- 
ent to  vote. 

The  1909  measure  to  remove  the  Party  Circle  from  the 
election  ballot  passed  the  Senate  but  was  defeated  in  the  As- 
sembly, that  body  by  a  vote  of  35  to  36  denying  the  measure 
second  reading.  The  change  of  one  negative  vote  would  have 
sent  the  measure  to  its  final  passage.  Five  Union  Labor  mem- 
bers— Behan,  Cullen,  Feeley,  Macauley,  Ferine  and  Silver — voted 
against  the  measure;  Johnston  and  Pugh  did  not  vote. 

The  1909  Judicial  Column  bill,  to  take  the  Judiciary  out  of 
politics,  passed  the  Senate,  but  was  defeated  in  the  Assembly, 
35  members  voting  for  it  and  29  against,  41  votes  being  neces- 
sary for  its  passage.  Six  more  affirmative  votes  would  have 
passed  it.  Seven  Union  Labor  members — Beban,  Black,  Coghlan, 
Cullen,  Feeley,  Macauley  and  Silver — voted  against  this  bill.  Four 
Union  Labor  members — Johnston,  O'Neil,  Ferine  and  Pugh — did 
not  vote  upon  It. 


Labor  and  the  Legislature  229 

that  industrial  reforms  worth  while  depend  upon  political 
reforms. 

Governor  Johnson  dealt  with  the  so-called  labor  meas- 
ures in  the  same  broad  spirit  that  governed  his  course  in 
the  whole  field  of  legislation.  He  vetoed  certain  labor 
measures  which  had  the  insistent  support  of  the  Labor 
organizations,  because  he  held  them  to  be  unnecessary 
or  bad,261  while,  because  he  deemed  them  just  and  nec- 

261  The  so-called  Bake   Shop  bill   (S.  B.  673),  for  example,  and 
the    Blacklisting   bill    (A.    B.    604).     In    his    message    vetoing    this 
last-named   measure,    Governor  Johnson   said: 
"To  the  Assembly  of  the   State  of  California: 

"I  return  herewith  to  you,  without  my  approval.  Assembly 
Bill  604,  entitled:  'An  Act  to  amend  the  Penal  Code  of  the  State 
of  California  by  adding  a  new  section  thereto  to  be  numbered 
653e,  relating  to  blacklisting.' 

"My  reasons  for  vetoing  this  bill  are  that  its  provisions  are 
vague,  uncertain  and  indefinite,  and  that  while  prohibiting  some 
things  that  we  might  desire  to  prohibit,  it  prohibits  others  we 
do  not  wish  to  prohibit. 

"Reading  the  Act,  omitting  superfluous  words,  the  first  inhibi- 
tion contained  in  it  is,  that  no  company  shall  blacklist  or  require 
a  letter  of  relinquishment.  I  inquired  of  the  author  of  the 
bill  what  a  'letter  of  relinquishment'  was,  and  he  was  unable 
to  tell  me.  I  have  sought  the  same  information  from  various 
sources,  and  but  one  gentleman  has  been  able  to  define  this  term 
and  he  was  quite  uncertain  of  his  definition.  If  'letter  of  relin- 
quishment' has  some  specific  and  definite  meaning,  it  has  not 
as  yet  required  a  legal  signification,  and  should  be  described  in 
some  fashion  so  that  the  phrase  may  be  easily  understood.  The 
next  inhibition  in  the  section  is  contained  in  the  words,  that  no 
company,  etc.,  shall  publish  any  employee.  The  most  astute 
attorneys  will  be  somewhat  at  a  loss  accurately  to  determine 
what  constitutes  publication  of  one  individual  by  another.  It 
is  possible  we  may  accept  the  legal  definition  of  'publish'  as  ap- 
plied to  libel,  and  it  might  be  held  that  when  a  person,  firm  or 
corporation  is  prohibited  from  publishing  an  employee,  the  mean- 
ing intended  is  that  nothing  shall  be  uttered  or  circulated  con- 
cerning that  employee.  At  any  rate,  the  vagueness  of  the  ex- 
pression renders  it  so  uncertain  as  to  be  of  doubtful  validity. 

"Again,  the  Act  makes  it  an  offense  for  any  person  (if  'pub- 
lish' be  construed  in  accordance  with  its  legal  significance)  to 
Impart  to  another  truthful  information  concerning  a  discharged 
employee  with  intent  to  prevent  that  employee  from  securing 
similar  employment.  I  doubt  very  much  if  it  was  the  intention 
of  the  Legislature  to  make  it  a  crime  for  'A'  who  had  dis- 
charged for  theft,  or  incompetency,  or  other  righteous  cause,  his 
employee,  to  say  to  'B,'  if  'B'  were  about  to  engage  that  em- 
ployee, that  the  employee  was  dishonest  or  incompetent.  There 
are  in  the  United  States  many  statutes  designed  to  reach  black- 
listing. In  most  of  those  statutes  there  is  a  saving  clause  pro- 


230  Labor  and  the  Legislature    . 

essary,  he  signed  labor  bills  which  had  the  opposition 
of  some  of  his  most  effective  supporters. 

Measures,  recognized  to  be  just,  the  enactment  of 
which  at  previous  sessions  had  been  prevented,  generally 
by  trickery  and  indirection,  passed  both  houses  and  were 
approved  by  the  Governor.262 

Notable  among  these  was  the  so-called  "Full  Crew" 
law. 

This  measure  provides  that  railroad  trains  must  be 
properly  manned,  that  is  to  say,  each  train  must  carry  a 

viding  for  a  truthful  declaration  respecting  a  discharged  employee, 
and  in  any  statute  our  Legislature  might  enact,  I  think  such  a 
proviso  should  be  contained.  I  may  add  that  this  particular  law 
is  copied  from  the  Oklahoma  statute,  but  I  have  been  unable 
to  find  any  construction  of  that  statute,  and  though  it  has  the 
sanction  of  Oklahoma,  I  yet  believe  it  open  to  the  objections  I 
have  presented.  I  have  no  objection  to  prohibiting  blacklisting; 
but  If  it  is  to  be  done,  I  wish  it  accomplished  by  an  Act  direct, 
certain  and  plain  in  its  terms  which  cannot  be  defeated  by  judi- 
cial construction,  and  which  would  preserve  as  well  the  right 
to  make  a  truthful  disclosure  of  the  reasons  for  the  discharge 
of  a  dishonest  or  incompetent  employee. 

"For  the  reasons  I  have  stated,  I  have  vetoed  the  bill." 

262  Governor  Johnson's  attitude  was  generally  appreciated.  The 
Building  Trades  Council  of  Santa  Clara  County,  for  example,  in 
March,  adopted,  and  forwarded  the  following  resolutions  to  Sac- 
ramento: 

"To   the   Senate  of   the  State  of  California: 

"Whereas,  The  thirty-ninth  session  of  the  California  Legisla- 
ture, the  most  remarkable  in  the  history  of  this  State,  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  laboring  people,  is  now  drawing  to  a  close,  and 

"Whereas,  This  administration  has  demonstrated  by  the  laws 
that  they  have  enacted  that  they  are  true  representatives  of  the 
people  and  have  devoted  their  entire  time  to  the  interests  and 
welfare  of  humanity,  while  previous  administrations,  in  their 
efforts  to  do  the  bidding  of  corporations,  have  forgotten  their 
pledges  to  the  people,  therefore,  be  it 

"Resolved,  By  the  Building  Trades  Council  of  Santa  Clara 
County,  representing  its  twenty-eight  affiliated  unions,  in  reg- 
ular session  assembled,  this  23rd  day  of  March,  1911,  that  we 
commend  Governor  Hiram  Johnson,  the  Senate  and  Assembly  for 
their  great  achievements,  and  congratulate  the  people  of  the  State 
for  electing  representatives  who  have  fulfilled  their  promise  and 
have  shown  the  world  that  California  is  no  longer  corporation- 
ridden;  be  it  further 

"Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  given  to  the 
press  and  a  copy  forwarded  to  Governor  Johnson,  the  California 
Senate  and  Assembly." 


Labor  and  the  Legislature  231 

full  crew  of  conductor  and  brakemen  necessary  for  its 
safe  operation.  Not  only  does  this  law  protect  the  train 
hands  but  the  traveling  public.263  Nevertheless,  the  en- 
actment of  such  legislation  had  long  been  successfully 
resisted.  When  at  the  1909  session  the  passage  of  a 
Full  Crew  law  became  imperative,  by  one  of  those  fre- 
quent "accidents"  of  legislation,  the  bill  was  erroneously 
amended,  and  on  this  ground  vetoed  by  Governor  Gil- 
lett.264 

But  no  such  "accident"  attended  the  passage  of  the 
Full  Crew  bill  at  the  1911  session,  and  the  measure  be- 
came a  law.  . 

A  second  railroad  measure,  intended  to  protect  the 
traveling  public  as  well  as  railroad  employees,  was  intro- 
duced in  the  Assembly  by  Williams.  This  measure  pro- 
vides that  railroad  employees  shall  not  remain  on  duty 
for  a  longer  period  than  sixteen  consecutive  hours.  This 
measure  also  passed  both  Houses  and  was  approved  by 
the  Governor. 


263  "The  whole  purpose  of  this  bill,"  said  Senator  Boynton 
before  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Common  Carriers,  "is  to  pro- 
tect life  and  limb.  It  is  for  the  safety  of  the  people  who  travel 
on  trains  that  extra  brakemen  are  desired. 

"I  do  not  believe  that  the  railroad  companies  who  are  repre- 
sented here  as  opposing  this  measure  are  doing  so  because  of  the 
additional  cost  its  provisions  would  entail.  Rather,  I  believe, 
that  the  railroads  are  objecting  solely  because  the  idea  of  regu- 
lation is  distasteful  to  them.  They  do  not  want  the  people  to 
tell  them  what  they  shall  or  shall  not  do  in  the  conduct  of  trains. 

"The  arguments  of  the  railroad  representatives  themselves 
show  that  there  is  need  of  regulation  in  this  respect.  They  all 
admit  that  a  greater  measure  of  safety  attends  a  train  which 
is  fully  manned  than  one  undermanned.  Gentlemen,  this  is  a 
good  measure.  It  is  needed  in  California  and  it  is  the  only 
means  by  which  the  railroads  will  use  full  crews  in  the  run- 
ning of  their  trains.  I  believe  this  bill  is  of  greater  interest 
and  moment  to  the  public  than  to  railroad  employees.  It  di- 
rectly affects  the  safety  of  all  who  ride  on  trains." 

26*  See  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,  page  153. 


232  Labor  and  the  Legislature 

The  so-called  "Pay-Check  bill"  265  was  another  im- 
portant labor  measure  which  the  1911  Legislature  enacted 
into  law. 

The  purpose  of  this  bill  was  to  compel  regular  pay- 
ment of  laborers  in  money  or  its  equivalent. 

Under  the  system  which  had  been  in  vogue  in  Cali- 
fornia, employers  of  unskilled  labor  had  made  a  practice 
of  issuing  "pay  checks"  to  their  men,  redeemable  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  employer  if  redeemed  at  all. 

The  evil  had  been  given  sensational  publicity  at  San 
Francisco  through  the  murder  of  a  woman  cashier  em- 
ployed by  the  contracting  firm  of  Gray  Bros. 

A  laborer  by  the  name  of  Cunningham,  who  had  been 
employed  by  Gray  Brothers,  had  a  "pay  check"  issued 
to  him  in  lieu  of  wages.  Cunningham  had  tried  for 
weeks  to  realize  on  his  check.  Finally,  suffering  for  the 
necessities  of  life,  he  imagined  that  the  woman  cashier 
who  put  him  off  from  day  to  day,  was  responsible  for 
his  trouble.  Acting  under  this  insane  conception,  Cun- 
ningham went  to  Gray  Brothers'  place  of  business,  and 
for  the  last  time  demanded  that  his  "pay  check"  be  hon- 
ored. Upon  the  cashier's  refusal,  he  shot  the  woman 
dead. 

As  an  immediate  result  of  the  notoriety  which  this  in- 

265  The  "pay  check"  bill  as  amended  In  the  Senate,  read  as 
follows:  "No  person,  firm,  or  corporation  engaged  in  any  busi- 
ness or  enterprise  within  this  State  shall  issue,  in  payment  of 
or  as  an  evidence  of  indebtedness  for  wages  due  an  employee, 
any  order,  check,  memorandum  or  other  acknowledgment  of  in- 
debtedness, unless  the  same  is  negotiable,  and  is  payable  upon 
demand  without  discount  in  cash  at  some  bank  or  other  estab- 
lished place  of  business  in  the  State,  provided,  however,  that  the 
provisions  of  this  act  shall  not  apply  to  counties,  cities  and 
counties,  municipal  corporations,  quasi  municipal  corporations,  or 
school  districts  organized  and  existing  under  the  laws  of  this 
State." 


Labor  and  the  Legislature  233 

cident  had  given  the  "pay  check"  evil,  no  less  than  four 
anti-pay  check  bills  were  introduced,  three  in  the  Assem- 
bly, with  Mullally,  Joel  and  Stuckenbruck  as  their  authors, 
and  one  in  the  Senate  by  Sanford.  The  Sanford  bill 
was  eventually  decided  upon  as  the  best,  and  finally 
passed. 

The  measure  was,  however,  made  subject  of  an  ex- 
tended debate  268  in  the  Senate,  a  debate  that  was  well 
peppered  with  personalities.  But  when  the  bill  came  to 
final  passage,  not  a  vote  was  cast  against  it  in  either 
House.  The  measure  received  the  approval  of  Governor 
Johnson. 

Another  measure,  which  under  the  machine  order 
had  failed  to  become  a  law,  but  which  at  the  191 1  session 
was  promptly  enacted,  was  the  so-called  "Sailors'  Entice- 
ment" bill,  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Wolfe. 

This  measure  repealed  Section  644  of  the  penal  code, 
enacted  in  1872,  which  made  it  a  misdemeanor  for  any 


266  It  was  during  the  debate  over  this  measure  that  Senator 
Wolfe  of  San  Francisco  gave  notice  that  he  proposed  to  keep  tab 
on  the  "reformers"  on  labor  issues. 

"I  am  going  to  keep  check  upon  you  reformers,"  shouted  "Wolfe, 
"on  labor  measures,  and  see  whether  your  reform  is  skin  deep." 

The  writer  is  not  able  to  state  whether  or  not  Senator  Wolfe 
kept  check.  But  that  is  unimportant. 

The  fact  remains,  however,  that  during  State  administrations 
dominated  by  "performers,"  reasonable  labor  legislation  failed 
of  final  enactment.  If  such  measures  were  not  defeated  in  Senate 
or  Assembly,  there  was  the  Governor's  veto  to  block  them.  It 
remained  for  a  progressive  administration  to  place  such  meas- 
ures as  the  "Full  Crew"  law,  the  "Pay  Check"  law,  and  other 
necessary  "labor"  laws  upon  the  statute  books;  and  to  repeal  the 
Sailor  Enforced  Servitude  law. 

All  this  is  thoroughly  understood  and  appreciated  by  intelli- 
gent— and  sincere — labor  representatives.  The  report  on  Labor 
Legislation  at  the  1911  session,  issued  by  the  California  State 
Federation  of  Labor,  says:  "Never  before  has  Organized  Labor 
of  our  State  and  its  representatives  at  the  Capitol  worked  as 
harmoniously,  and  never  was  as  much  interest  manifested  and  as- 
sistance rendered  by  our  organizations  and  the  Reform  Movement 
generally." 


234  Labor  and  the  Legislature 

person  to  entice  a  sailor  to  leave  his  ship.  At  the  time 
of  the  passage  of  Section  644,  the  Federal  law  prohibited 
the  desertion  of  seamen.  However,  in  1895,  Congress 
passed  a  law  granting  American  seamen  the  right  to  leave 
their  vessels  before  the  expiration  of  their  contracts,  in 
any  port  of  the  United  States,  Canada,  Mexico,  New- 
foundland and  the  West  Indies.  The  penalty  of  impris- 
onment for  desertion  was  abolished,  the  deserting  sailor 
forfeiting  only  his  wages  earned  and  his  clothing  left  on 
board. 

Since  this  act  of  Congress,  as  it  was  no  longer  a  crime 
under  the  Federal  law  for  a  sailor  to  leave  his  ship  in 
the  waters  specified,  repeated  efforts  were  made  to  have 
the  California  section  repealed.  Repealing  measures  ac- 
tually passed  the  Legislature  at  two  sessions,  only  to  be 
vetoed  by  the  Governor.  At  the  1911  session,  the  meas- 
ure was  not  vetoed;  Governor  Johnson  signed  the  bill, 
and  the  antiquated  law,267  based  on  the  theory  that  breach 
of  contract  on  the  part  of  a  sailor  is  a  crime,  was  re- 
moved from  California  statute  books. 

Important  measures  affecting  child  labor,  which  at 
previous  sessions  would  have  been  given  scant  considera- 
tion, became  laws. 

The  most  important  of  these  was  Assembly  bill  662, 
introduced  by  Mullally,  which  prohibits  minors  under 
eighteen  years  to  engage  in,  or  conduct  any  business,  be- 
tween the  hours  of  10  o'clock  in  the  evening  and  5  o'clock 
in  the  nlorning.  The  principal  purpose  of  this  measure 
is  to  keep  children  out  of  dives  and  saloons  at  hours 

267  The  Federal  statute  which  made  It  a  crime  to  harbor  or  se- 
crete a  deserting  seaman  was  enacted  in  1790.  The  law  was  re- 
pealed in  1895. 


Labor  and  the  Legislature  235 

when  shamelessness  runs  riot.  Its  presentation  in  the 
Legislature  and  its  ultimate  passage,  was  due  largely  to 
Rev.  Charles  N.  Lathrop  of  the  Church  of  the  Advent, 
San  Francisco.  Father  Lathrop  had  photographs  made 
of  the  youngsters,  who  as  venders  of  papers,  candies  and 
the  like,  frequented  the  dives  at  all  hours  of  the  night. 
These  photographs  furnished  arguments  which  could  not 
be  met. 

A  long  step  toward  furnishing  adequate  protection 
for  electrical  workers  was  taken  in  the  passage  of  Assem- 
bly bills  312  and  313.  These  measures  were  prepared 
along  lines  suggested  by  the  workmen  themselves.  The 
measures  were  thoroughly  considered  by  the  committees 
to  which  they  were  referred.  Representatives  of  the 
power  companies  were  given  long  hearings,  and  finally 
compromise  measures  acceptable  to  both  sides  were  agreed 
upon.288 

The  three  principal  successes  of  Labor  at  the  1911 
session,  namely,  the  passage  of  the  Roseberry  Employers' 
Liability  act;  the  Griffin  bill  limiting  the  hours  of  labor 
for  women  to  eight  a  day,  and  the  defeat  of  the  so-called 
"Compulsory  Arbitration"  bill,  will  be  treated  in  separate 
chapters ;  as  will  the  defeat  of  two  important  measures 
urged  by  representatives  of  organized  labor,  namely,  the 
Telfer  Constitutional  Amendment  providing  that  school 
children  shall  be  furnished  school  books  free  of  cost,  and 
the  so-called  anti-Injunction  bill. 

368  The  California  State  Federation  of  Labor,  in  its  report  on 
the  work  of  the  1911  session,  said  of  these  bills:  "California  will 
have  laws  protecting  the  electrical  workers  and  making  their 
work  as  safe  as  it  can  be  reasonably  made,  by  standardizing  all 
new  construction  and  repair  work  after  a  certain  date." 


CHAPTER  XIX. 
EMPLOYERS'  LIABILITY  ACT. 

Measure  to  Place  Burden  of  Risk  of  Industry  Upon 
the  Industry  Itself  Instead  of  Upon  Employer  or 
Employee  Adopted. 

The  Democratic  State  platform  (1910)  made  no  dec- 
laration of  the  party's  attitude  on  the  question  of  Employ- 
ers' Liability  legislation.  The  Republicans,  however,  de- 
clared for  "an  Employers'  Liability  act  which  shall  put 
on  industry  the  charges  of  its  risks  to  human  life  and 
limb  along  the  lines  recommended  by  Theodore  Roose- 
velt." 

To  carry  out  this  provision  of  the  platform,  Chairman 
Lissner  of  the  Republican  State  Central  Committee  ap- 
pointed a  committee  to  draw  such  a  measure.  But  it 
developed  that  Senator  Louis  H.  Roseberry  of  Santa 
Barbara  had  given  the  matter  of  employers'  liability  much 
study  and  consideration,  and  upon  him  devolved  the 
labor  of  drawing  the  tentative  measure  to  be  presented 
to  the  Legislature.  The  Roseberry  bill  became  the  basis 
of  consideration  of  the  question  of  employers'  liability. 
With  one  important  amendment,  the  measure  was  finally 
enacted  into  law. 

The  situation  caused  by  raising  the  question  of  Em- 
ployers' Liability  legislation,  was  strained  from  the  be- 
ginning. This  was  due  to  the  extreme  positions  taken 


Employers'  Liability  Act  237 

as  to  the  details  of  the  measure,  although  it  was  gener- 
ally admitted  that  some  sort  of  an  Employers'  Liability 
law  should  be  enacted. 

Various  labor  organizations  instructed  their  repre- 
sentatives at  Sacramento  that  they  recommended  "the 
passage  of  the  Employers'  Liability  bill  submitted  by  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  and  none  other." 

On  the  other  hand,  some  of  the  Progressive  members 
of  the  Legislature  hesitated  about  abrogating  the  doc- 
trine of  "assumed  risk,"  269  and  "fellow  servant  rule," 
while  others,  yielding  these  points,  insisted  that  the  doc- 
trine of  "contributory  negligence"  27°  be  left  unchanged. 

With  such  differences,  a  situation  rapidly  developed 

269  California    courts    have    held    of    the    "fellow   servant"    and 
"assumed  risk"  rule  that: 

"Fellow  servants  are  engaged  in  a  common  employment  when 
each  of  them  is  occupied  in  a  service  of  such  kind  that  all  the 
others  in  the  exercise  of  ordinary  sagacity  ought  to  be  able  to 
foresee  when  accepting  their  employment  that  his  negligence 
would  probably  expose  them  to  injury. 

"Mann  vs.  Sullivan,  126  Cal.  61. 

"See  Sec.  1970  C.  C.  An  employer  is  not  bound  to  indemnify 
his  employee  for  losses  suffered  by  the  latter  in  consequence  of 
the  ordinary  risks  of  the  business  in  which  he  is  employed;  nor 
in  consequence  of  the  negligence  of  another  person  employed  by 
the  same  employer  in  the  same  general  business  and  commonly 
called  a  fellow  servant,  unless  he  has  neglected  to  use  ordinary 
care  in  the  selection  of  such  culpable  employee  or  fellow  ser- 
vant. The  law  recognizes  no  distinction  growing  out  of  the  grades 
of  employment  of  the  respective  employees,  nor  does  it  give  any 
effect  to  the  circumstances  that  the  fellow  servant  through  whose 
negligence  the  injury  came  was  the  superior  of  the  plaintiff  In 
the  general  service  in  which  they  were  in  common  engaged." 

270  As  the  law  had  been  until  the  passage  of  the  Roseberry  act, 
instructions    given    juries    by    trial    judges    in    damage    cases,    on 
contributory  negligence   were  about  as   follows: 

"Negligence  is  the  omission  to  do  something  which  an  ordinar- 
ily prudent  person  would  have  done  under  the  circumstances;  oi 
doing  something  which  such  a  person  would  not  have  done  in 
the  same  situation.  It  is  not  absolute  or  intrinsic,  but  always 
relates  to  some  circumstances  of  time,  place  or  person. 

"An  injury  may  be  sustained  either  through  the  negligence 
of  the  plaintiff,  or  through  the  negligence  of  the  defendant;  if 
through  the  negligence  of  plaintiff  the  plaintiff  cannot  recover. 
If  you  find  that  the  defendant  was  negligent,  and  that  the  plain- 


238  Employers'  Liability  Act 

which,  for  the  moment,  threatened  the  enactment  of  any 
Employers'  Liability  legislation  at  all. 

Nevertheless,  two  important  Employers'  Liability 
measures  were  introduced,  the  Roseberry  bill,  and  the 
Kehoe  bill. 

The  Kehoe  bill  as  originally  introduced  dealt  with 
"Common  Carriers  by  Railroads,"  only,  and  was  later 
amended  to  read  "railroad  corporations,  excluding  street 
railroad  corporations."  The  Kehoe  bill  was  far  more  rad- 
ical than  the  Roseberry  bill,  and  was  not  seriously  con- 
sidered until  the  Roseberry  measure  had  passed  the  Sen- 
ate. It  was  then  pressed  for  passage,  and  passed  both 
houses.  But  it  conflicted  with  the  Roseberry  bill  as  that 
measure  finally  passed. 

The  Kehoe  bill  did  not  receive  the  approval  of  the 
Governor.  J!:  ; 

The  Roseberry  bill  was  divided  into  two  parts,  deal- 
ing as  a  matter  of  fact,  with  two  principles : 

( 1 )  With  the  principle  of  Employers'  Liability,  which 
places  the  blame  for  accidents  in  industry  and  the  cost 
of  them  upon  the  employer. 

(2)  With  the  doctrine  of  compensation,  which,  re- 


tiff  was  also  negligent,  and  that  the  plaintiff's  negligence  directly 
contributed  to  his  Injury,  then  plaintiff  cannot  recover.  Such 
negligence  on  plaintiff's  part  Is  called  contributory  negligence. 
Contributory  negligence  is  no  bar  where  act  of  defendant  is  wil- 
fully and  wantonly  done. 

"Contributory  negligence"  is  such  an  act  or  omission  on  the 
part  of  plaintiff  amounting  to  a  want  of  ordinary  care,  as  concur- 
ring or  co-operating  with  the  negligent  act  of  defendant,  was 
the  proximate  cause  of  the  injury  complained  of.  Unless  it  may 
be  inferred  from  the  evidence  offered  by  plaintiff,  such  negligence 
is  a  matter  of  defense,  to  be  proved  affirmatively  by  the  defend- 
ant, and  hence  the  burden  of  proof  of  contributory  negligence  is 
on  the  defendant." 


Employers'  Liability  Act  239 

gardless  of  blame,  places  the  burden  of  accidents  upon  the 
cost  of  production.271 

The  first  part  of  the  Roseberry  bill,  as  originally  in- 
troduced, dealing  with  Employers'  Liability,  dealt  with 
the  three  issues  that  divided  the  several  factions  as  fol- 
lows: 

(1)  The  doctrine  of  "contributory  negligence"  was 
left  intact. 

This  was  satisfactory  to  the  conservatives,  but  was 
not  acceptable  to  the  labor  representatives. 


271  Senator  Roseberry  in  an  address  before  the  Los  Angeles 
City  Club,  distinguished  between  the  two  doctrines  as  follows: 

"Employers'  Liability  law  merely  means  that  the  workingman 
shall  receive  his  compensation  by  an  action  at  law,  on  the  theory 
of  blame  on  the  part  of  his  employer.  It  is  a  liability  that  the 
employer  must  incur  by  virtue  of  his  legal  and  moral  responsi- 
bility; something  that  he  must  bear  personally. 

"The  doctrine  of  employers'  liability  is  harsh.  It  is  bad.  It 
is  theoretically  wrong.  It  forces  the  case  into  court,  resulting  in 
delays,  expense,  litigation,  and  finally  makes  the  employer  stand 
the  loss,  whether  he  is  personally  responsible  or  to  blame. 

"A  compensation  law,  on  the  other  hand,  is  framed  upon  the 
theory  that,  regardless  of  blame,  it  is  a  cost  of  production  that 
must  be  carried  over  to  the  consumer,  and,  therefore,  you  do  not 
seek  to  find  who  is  responsible,  legally  or  morally,  for  the  accident, 
but  as  a  matter  of  course,  when  a  man  is  injured,  he  becomes 
entitled  to  compensation  and  payment  for  his  injury,  the  same 
as  he  is  entitled  to  a  payment  for  his  labor.  It  is  his  wage  that 
goes  on  during  his  disability,  the  same  as  while  it  was  a  produ- 
cing factor,  to  be  carried  on  the  books  as  such,  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  an  employer,  a  wise  employer,  carries  his  depreciation  of 
the  machinery  on  his  books,  and  figures  that  he  must  duplicate 
his  machinery  once  in  every  10  or  20  years.  Under  this  new, 
automatic  compensation  scheme  he  carries  his  liability  or  cost 
of  accidents  on  his  books  and  shifts  it  to  the  consumer.  If  the 
law  is  measured  properly  by  a  maximum  and  minimum  rate,  it 
becomes  a  clearly  defined  cost  of  production,  just  as  certain  as 
is  his  insurance, — his  fire  insurance;  just  as  certain  as  is  his 
depreciation  in  machinery  is  the  depreciation  in  arms  and  lives 
of  his  laborers.  It  can  be  reckoned  with  just  as  much  exactitude 
and  is  today  carried  by  the  insurance  companies  as  a  clearly 
defined  commercial  risk,  upon  which  they  can  charge  an  Insur- 
ance, coming  down  to  a  few  cents." 


240  Employers'  Liability  Act 

(2)  The  doctrines  of  "assumed  risk"  and  of  the 
"fellow  servant  rule"  were  abrogated.272 

This  was  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  the  labor 
representatives,  but  met  with  opposition  from  conserva- 
tives. 

Thus  at  the  beginning,  details  of  the  first  part  of  the 
Roseberry  bill  had  the  serious  opposition  of  both  the 
representatives  of  organized  labor,  and  of  those  who  were 
generally  credited  with  opposing  legislation  which  the 
labor  representatives  were  demanding. 

The  second  part  of  the  bill  was  devoted  to  the  com- 
pensation feature. 

After  depriving  the  employer,  in  the  first  part  of  the 
bill,  of  two  important  defenses  in  damage  suits  arising 
out  of  injuries  suffered  by  employees,  the  second  part 
made  it  optional  with  the  employer  to  continue  liable  to 
suit  at  law,  or  to  accept  a  plan  of  fixed  compensation  for 
those  of  his  employees  suffering  accident,  in  lieu  of  any 
other  liability  whatsoever. 

If  he  accepted  the  compensation  plan,  he  was  relieved 
of  all  further  liability,273  but  bound  to  meet  the  fixed 

272  These  provisions  were  made  in  Section  I  of  the  Roseberry 
bill  as  it  was  originally  introduced.     The  section  read  as  follows: 

"In  any  action  to  recover  damages  for  a  personal  injury  sus- 
tained within  this  State  by  an  employee  while  engaged  in  the 
line  of  his  duty  or  the  course  of  his  employment  as  such,  or  for 
death  resulting  from  personal  injury  so  sustained,  in  which  re- 
covery is  sought  upon  the  ground  of  want  of  ordinary  or  reason- 
able care  of  the  employer,  or  of  any  officer,  agent  or  servant  of  the 
employer,  it  shall  not  be  a  defense: 

"(1).  That  the  employee  either  expressly  or  impliedly  assumed 
the  risk  of  the  hazard  complained  of. 

"(2).  That  the  injury  or  death  was  caused  in  whole  or  in  part 
by  the  want  of  ordinary  or  reasonable  care  of  a  fellow  servant." 

273  Except   when    the    injury   is    caused   by   the   personal   gross 
negligence  or  wilful  personal   misconduct  of   the   employer,    or  by 
reason  of  his  violation  of  any  statute  designed  for  the  protection 
of    employees    from    bodily   harm.      It    is    then    left    optional    with 
the    injured    employee    to    claim    compensation    under    the   act,    or 
bring  action  for  damages. 


Employers'  Liability  Act  241 

damages  provided.  Employees  of  such  employers  as  ac- 
cepted the  compensation  provisions  of  the  act,  were  as- 
sumed to  accept  the  plan  also,  unless  they  definitely  gave 
notice  to  the  contrary. 

In  the  controversy  over  the  bill,  the  second,  or  compen- 
sation-providing part,  was  left  practically  unchanged. 
The  attention  of  the  Legislature  was  devoted  to  the  first 
part,  dealing  with  employers'  liability. 

The  first  important  move  toward  understanding  be- 
tween the  labor  representatives  and  the  more  conservative 
members  of  the  Legislature,  came  with  an  invitation  to 
Senator  Roseberry  to  attend  a  conference  of  labor  repre- 
sentatives, to  discuss  the  disputed  features  of  the  bill. 
Senator  Roseberry  attended.  The  meeting  was  large, 
practically  every  branch  of  labor  being  represented. 

Roseberry  was  urged  to  accept  amendments  to  his 
bill  to  change  the  doctrine  of  contributory  negligence,  to 
the  present  Federal  rule  of  damages  as  enacted  in  1908. 274 

274  The  Review  of  Labor  Legislation  of  1909,  published  at  Mad- 
ison, Wis.,  by  the  American  Association  for  Labor  Legislation, 
says  of  the  Federal  Act  of  1908: 

"The  Federal  act  of  April  22,  1908,  makes  a  railroad  company 
liable  for  an  employee's  injury  or  death  resulting  in  whole  or  in 
part  from  the  negligence  of  any  of  its  officers,  agents  or  em- 
ployees. It  also  provides  that  contributory  negligence  shall  not 
bar  a  recovery  when  it  is  slight  and  the  negligence  of  the  em- 
ployer gross  in  comparison,  but  that  the  damages  shall  be  dimin- 
ished by  the  jury  in  proportion  to  the  employee's  negligence. 
Finally,  it  provides  that  no  employee  can  be  held  guilty  of  con- 
tributory negligence  or  to  have  assumed  the  risk  where  viola- 
tion of  a  statute  enacted  for  safety  contributed  to  the  injury.  The 
law  applies  generally  to  all  common  carriers,  while  operating 
within  the  Territories,  the  District  of  Columbia  and  other  pos- 
sessions of  the  United  States.  In  its  application  to  interstate 
commerce,  however,  the  statute  is  explicitly  limited;  a  former 
statute  passed  in  1906  was  declared  unconstitutional  on  the 
ground  of  its  too  general  application.  The  law  of  1908  reads: 
'Every  common  carrier  by  railroad,  while  engaging  in  commerce 
between  any  of  the  several  States,'  etc.,  'shall  be  liable  in  dam- 
ages to  any  person  suffering  injury  while  he  is  employed  by  such 
carrier  in  such  commerce,'  "  etc. 


242  Employers'  Liability  Act 

This  he  refused  to  do,  contending  that  his  bill,  even  with 
the  doctrine  of  contributory  negligence  left  intact,  was 
sufficiently  drastic.  Finally,  however,  Roseberry  con- 
sented to  have  the  question  brought  out  before  the  Com- 
mittee on  Corporations,  to  which  the  bill  had  been  re- 
ferred. 

In  pursuance  of  this  understanding,  Senator  Welch 
introduced  an  amendment  to  the  bill,  to  modify  the  doc- 
trine of  contributory  negligence  to  the  Federal  rule  of 
1908. 

The  whole  contest  over  the  bill  shifted  to  this  point. 
A  compromise  was  finally  reached  by  which  the  "doctrine 
of  comparative  negligence"275  was  substituted  for  con- 
tributory negligence. 

With  the  adoption  of  this  amendment,  the  labor  repre- 
sentatives got  behind  the  bill,  but  there  was  still  more  or 
less  opposition  to  details  from  those  who  questioned  the 
advisability  of  abrogating  the  doctrine  of  "assumed  risk" 
and  "fellow  servant  rule,"  or  who  regarded  the  measure 
as  drastic  in  some  other  of  its  details. 

When  the  measure  came  up  for  final  passage  in  the 
Senate,  Senator  Larkins  offered  amendments  that  retained 
some  of  the  features  of  the  "fellow  servant  rule,"  and  ex- 
cluded individual  employers  of  labor  from  the  definition 
of  "employers"  under  the  act. 

275  Under  the  rule  of  "comparative  negligence"  the  jury,  in 
theory  at  least,  weighs  between  the  litigants  before  it  who  is 
most  to  blame  for  the  accident,  and  the  man  found  most  blame  - 
able  sustains  the  shock.  If  it  can  be  shown  that  the  employer 
was  more  responsible  for  the  accident,  by  virtue  of  his  omission 
or  his  negligence,  he  must  stand  the  burden  of  the  accident.  If 
the  employer  can  prove  that  the  employee  was  more  negligent 
then  the  employee  must  bear  the  shock  of  the  accident.  That  is 
the  doctrine  of  comparative  negligence — balance  of  fault. 


Employers'  Liability  Act  243 

The  first 276  of  these  amendments  was  defeated  by  a 
vote  of  3  to  29,  only  Larkins,  Strobridge  and  Wright 
voting  for  it.  The  second  amendment  was  defeated  by 
a  vote  of  2  to  30,  only  Avey  and  Larkins  voting  in  the 
affirmative.271 

The  bill  was  then  put  upon  its  final  passage,  and 
passed  without  a  dissenting  vote.278 

Nor  was  any  vote  cast  against  the  measure  in  the 
Assembly,  where  56  members  voted  for  it.279 

276  The  amendment  which  substituted  "comparative  negligence" 
for    "contributory    negligence"    read    as    follows:     "The    fact    that 
such   employee   may   have   been   guilty   of   contributory  negligence 
shall    not   bar    a    recovery    therein    where    his    contributory    negli- 
gence  was   slight   and   that   of   the   employer  was   gross,    in   com- 
parison, but  the  damages  may  be  diminished  by  the  jury  in  pro- 
portion   to    the    amount    of    negligence    attributable    to    such    em- 
ployee, and  it  shall  be  conclusively  presumed  that  such  employee 
was  not  guilty  of  contributory  negligence  in  any  case  where  the 
violation  of  any  statute  enacted  for  the  safety  of  employees  con- 
tributed to  such   employee's  injury." 

277  This    proposed    amendment    read    as    follows:     "except    that 
an  employer  in  any  action  may  show  in  all  cases  where  laborers 
shall  be  employed  in  business  not  hazardous  in  character  that  no 
act  or  omission  of  such  employer  caused  or  tended  to  cause  such 
injury,    and   in   such    cases   an    employer   shall    not   be   responsible 
for  any   damages   caused  by  the   want   of   ordinary  or  reasonable 
care  of  a  fellow  servant,   when  such  employer  does  not  cause  or 
contribute  to  such  injury  by  any  act  or  omission  upon  his  part." 

Larkins  argued  very  earnestly  for  his  amendment  stating  that 
it  was  for  the  protection  of  the  employer  of  small  means  and 
principally  to  help  the  farmer. 

Senator  Roseberry,  author  of  the  measure,  declared  that  if 
the  amendment  were  tacked  on  to  the  bill  the  effect  would  be 
ruined  as  it  would  always  be  easy  for  an  employer  to  dodge  be- 
hind a  "fellow  servant." 

278  The  Senate  vote  on  the  Roseberry  Employers'  Liability  act 
was  as  follows: 

For  the  bill — Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boynton, 
Bryant,  Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cassidy,  Cut- 
ten,  Estudillo,  Finn,  Gates,  Hare,  Hewitt,  Holohan,  Hurd,  Juil- 
liard,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Shan- 
ahan,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  Walker,  Welch,  Wolfe,  and 
Wright— 36. 

Against  the  bill — None. 

27»  The  Assembly  vote  on  the  Roseberry  Employers'  Liability 
bill  was  as  follows: 

For  the  bill — Beatty,  Beckett,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Bishop, 
Brown,  Butler,  Clark,  Coghlan,  Cronin,  Cunningham,  Denegri, 


244  Employers'  Liability  Act 

Of  this  bill,  the  labor  leaders  who  were  instrumental 
in  securing  its  passage,  in  their  report  on  the  work  of 
the  1911  Legislature  said: 

"This  law,  in  its  operation,  will  undoubtedly  have  a 
more  widely  diffused  and  beneficial  effect  upon  labor 
than  any  other  measure  enacted." 

The  failure  of  the  State  Constitution  to  provide 
definitely  for  employers'  liability  and  workmen's  com- 
pensation legislation,  led  to  the  introduction  and  adoption 
of  a  constitutional  amendment — Senate  Amendment  No. 
32.280 

Farwell,  Feeley,  Flint,  Freeman,  Gaylord,  Griffin  of  Modesto, 
Guill,  Hamilton,  Hayes,  Held,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Joel,  Judson,  Kehoe, 
Kennedy,  Lamb,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco, 
Malone,  March,  McDonald,  McGowen,  Mullally,  Polsley,  Preisker, 
Randall,  Rimlinger,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco,  Rogers  of  Alameda, 
Rosendale,  Rutherford,  Ryan,  Sbragia,  Schmitt,  Slater,  Smith, 
Stevenot,  Stuckenbruck,  Sutherland,  Telfer,  Tibbits,  "Walker,  Wil- 
son— 56. 

Against  the  bill — None. 

280  Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  No.  32,  authorizing  em- 
ployers' liability  legislation,  is  in  full  as  follows: 

"The  Legislature  may  by  approprite  legislation  create  and  en- 
force a  liability  on  the  part  of  all  employers  to  compensate  their 
employees  for  any  injury  incurred  by  the  said  employees  in  the 
course  of  their  employment  irrespective  of  the  fault  of  either 
party.  The  Legislature  may  provide  for  the  settlement  of  any 
disputes  arising  under  the  legislation  contemplated  by  this  sec- 
tion, by  arbitration,  by  an  industrial  accident  board,  and  by  the 
courts,  or  either  of  these  agencies,  anything  in  this  Constitution 
to  the  contrary  notwithstanding." 

The  vote  on  this  amendment  was  as  follows: 

In  the  Senate:  For  the  amendment — Avey,  Bell,  Bills,  Blrdsall, 
Black,  Boynton,  Bryant,  Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Gates, 
Hewitt,  Holohan,  Hurd,  Juilliard,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  Rose- 
berry,  Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Strobridge,  Tyrrell,  Walker, 
Welch,  and  Wolfe— 27. 

Against   the   amendment — None. 

In  the  Assembly:  For  the  amendment — Beatty,  Beckett,  Ben- 
nink,  Bishop,  Bliss,  Bohnett,  Brown,  Butler,  Clark,  Coghlan,  Cro- 
nin,  Cunningham,  Denegri,  Farwell,  Feeley,  Flint,  Freeman,  Gay- 
lord,  Griffin  of  Modesto,  Griffiths,  Guill,  Hall,  Hamilton,  Harlan, 
Hayes,  Held,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Joel,  Judson,  Kehoe,  Ken- 
nedy, Lamb,  Maher,  Malone,  McDonald,  McGowen,  Mott,  Preis- 
ker Rogers  of  Alameda,  Rosendale,  Rutherford,  Ryan,  Sbragia, 
Schmitt,  Slater,  Smith,  Stevenot,  Telfer,  Tibbits,  Walsh,  Wilson, 
Wyllie — 54. 

Against  the  amendment— Cattell,  Chandler,  and  Cogswell— 3. 


Employers'  Liability  Act  245 

The  amendment  was  adopted  in  the  Senate  by  a  vote 
of  27  to  0;  and  in  the  Assembly  by  a  vote  of  54  to  3, 
Assemblymen  CattelJ,  Chandler  and  Cogswell  voting 
against  it. 


CHAPTER  XX. 
WOMAN'S  EIGHT-HOUR  BILL. 

Measure  to  Limit  the  Hours  of  Labor  of  Women  to 
Eight  Passed  After  One  of  the  Most  Notable  Con- 
tests of  the  Session. 

In  the  summer  of  1910,  a  number  of  San  Francisco 
women  wage  earners  met  on  business  connected  with  the 
Women's  Union  Label  League.  Among  those  in  attend- 
ance was  Miss  Maud  Younger,  a  woman  who  is  devo- 
ting her  time  and  her  fortune  to  improving  the  conditions 
under  which  wage-earning  women  labor.  It  was  sug- 
gested that  an  effort  be  made  to  secure  the  passage  of 
an  eight-hour  law  for  California  women,  a  law  that  should 
limit  the  hours  women  may  labor  for  wages  to  eight 
a  day,  or  forty-eight  a  week. 

Miss  Younger  became  interested,  and  from  that  hour 
until  March  22,  1911,  when  Governor  Johnson  signed  the 
Woman's  Eight-Hour  law,  Miss  Younger  devoted  her 
days  and  her  nights  to  this  cause.  Her  work  took  her 
through  some  of  the  most  exciting  scenes  of  the  1911 
session.281 

The  question  of  an  eight-hour  day  for  women  was 
presented  at  the  annual  convention  of  the  State  Federa- 

281  The  rule  against  lobbying  while  the  houses  were  in  ses- 
sion was  strictly  enforced.  Miss  Younger's  efforts  in  behalf  of 
the  Eight-Hour  bill  had  earned  her  the  name  of  lobbyist.  Hav- 
ing business  with  Senator  Caminetti  one  forenoon,  she  ventured 
on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  while  that  body  was  in  session.  Her 


Woman's  Eight-Hour  Bill  247 

tion  of  Labor,  held  at  Los  Angeles  Oct.  3-7,  1910.  As  a 
result,  an  eight-hour  working  law  for  women  was  one  of 
the  acts  which  the  legislative  agents  sent  to  Sacramento 
by  the  California  State  Federation  of  Labor,  were  in- 
structed to  urge. 

The  bill  prepared  as  a  result  of  this  work,  which  orig- 
inated with  the  working  women  themselves,  was  on  Jan- 
uary 10,  introduced  by  Senator  Benj.  F.  Rush  of  Napa 
and  Solano.282 

But  while  the  women  wage  earners  of  California  were 
planning  for  legislative  consideration  of  an  eight-hour 
work  day  for  women,  a  similar  movement,  entirely  in- 
dependent of  them,  was  started  in  Stanislaus  County. 
The  Stanislaus  Democrats,  in  their  county  platform,  de- 
manded "the  enactment  of  a  state  law  limiting  the  hours 
of  women  in  shops,  factories  and  stores  to  50  hours  per 
week  or  less,"  and  pledged  their  nominees  for  legislative 
office  to  vote  to  bring  about  the  reform. 

Thomas    F.    Griffin,    Democratic    nominee    for    the 

presence  was  observed  and  objection  made  to  lobbyists  being 
permitted  on  the  floor. 

When  Caminetti  understood  that  Miss  Younger  was  the  "lob- 
byist" referred  to,  he  became  furious  even  for  him.  She  started 
to  leave  the  room,  but  Caminetti  stopped  her.  At  the  close  of 
his  denunciation  of  the  objectors  he  announced: 

"This  young  woman  is  assisting  me  in  my  work.  She  is  not  a 
lobbyist;  she  is  acting  as  my  clerk.  She  will  not  leave  my  desk." 

Still  was  objection  made. 

"Then,"  thundered  Caminetti,  "I'll  leave  the  chamber  myself, 
for  it  is  necessary  that  I  have  the  assistance  which  she  is  giving 
me." 

Miss  Younger  remained. 

282  The  prohibitive  clause  of  the  Rush  bill  (S.  B.  223)  read 
as  follows : 

"That  no  female  shall  be  employed  in  any  manufacturing,  mer- 
cantile establishment,  laundry,  hotel,  restaurant,  apartment  house, 
workshop,  place  of  amusement,  or  any  other  [industrial]  establish- 
ment in  this  State  more  than  eight  hours  in  any  one  day  of 
twenty-four  hours  nor  more  than  forty-eight  hours  in  any  one 
week  of  six  calendar  days." 


248  Woman's  Eight-Hour  Bill 

Assembly  from  the  Stanislaus  district,  was  heartily  in 
accord  with  the  movement.  Upon  his  election,  he  pro- 
ceeded to  draw  a  bill  to  accord  with  the  platform  pledge. 
But  decisions  upholding  a  shorter  work  day  than  ten 
hours  could  not  be  found.  Griffin  accordingly  drew  a 
model  ten-hour  law  for  women.283  This  bill,  Griffin,  act- 
ing entirely  independent  of  Rush,  introduced  in  the  As- 
sembly on  the  day  that  the  Rush  bill  was  introduced  in 
the  Senate. 

The  day  following  the  introduction  of  the  Rush  and 
the  Griffin  bills,  still  a  third  measure  to  limit  the  hours 
of  women  workers  was  introduced.  This  measure  was 
presented  by  Assemblyman  Callahan,  and  limited  the 
hours  that  a  female  might  work  for  wages  to  nine  a 
day.28* 

Thus,  from  three  independent  sources,  measures  to 
limit  the  hours  that  women  may  labor  for  hire  were  intro- 
duced during  the  first  days  of  the  session. 

It  developed  immediately  that  a  strong  sentiment  pre- 
vailed for  the  passage  of  not  only  a  law  limiting  the  hours 

283  The  prohibitive  clause  in  the  Griffin  bill,  as  it  was  originally 
introduced,  read  as  follows: 

"No  female  shall  be  employed  in  any  manufacturing,  mechani- 
cal or  mercantile  establishment,  laundry,  hotel,  or  restaurant,  or 
telegraph  or  telephone  establishment  or  office,  or  by  any  express 
or  transportation  company  in  this  State  more  than  ten  hours  dur- 
ing any  one  day  or  more  than  sixty  hours  in  one  week.  The  hours 
of  work  may  be  so  arranged  as  to  permit  the  employment  of  fe- 
males at  any  time  so  that  they  shall  not  work  more  than  ten 
hours  during  the  twenty-four  hours  of  one  day,  or  sixty  hours 
during  any  one  week." 

28*  The  prohibitive  clause  of  the  Callahan  bill  read: 
"That  no  female  shall  be  employed  in  any  mechanical  estab- 
lishment, or  factory,  or  laundry,  or  workshop,  or  restaurant,  or 
hotel,  or  office,  or  other  place  of  labor,  in  this  State,  more  than 
nine  hours  during  any  one  day.  The  hours  of  work  may  be  so 
arranged  as  to  permit  the  employment  of  females  at  any  time 
so  that  they  shall  not  work  more  than  nine  hours  during  the 
twenty-four  hours  of  any  day." 


Woman's  Eight-Hour  Bill  249 

of  female  labor,  but  to  fix  the  hours  at  eight  a  day  as 
the  maximum. 

The  Senate  Committee  on  Labor  and  Capital  reported 
the  Rush  bill  within  ten  days,  recommending  its  passage 
as  amended.  The  eight-hour  provision  was  left  intact,  the 
principal  amendment  being  an  exemption  from  the  pro- 
visions of  the  bill  of  women  engaged  in  harvesting,  curing 
or  drying  fruit  or  vegetables.  The  Senate  adopted  this 
amendment  and  prepared  to  pass  the  bill. 

In  the  meantime,  it  developed  that  the  Assembly 
Committee  on  Capital  and  Labor,  to  which  the  Griffin 
ten-hour  and  the  Callahan  nine-hour  bills  had  been  re- 
ferred, favored  the  passage  of  an  eight-hour  bill.  The 
proponents  of  such  legislation  held  a  consultation,  and 
decided  that  the  Griffin  bill  was  the  best  of  the  three 
measures.  It  was  decided  to  amend  the  Griffin  measure 
to  make  it  an  eight-hour  measure  and  unite  on  its  pass- 
age. Following  this  plan,  the  Rush  bill  was  withdrawn 
by  its  author,  the  day  after  the  passage  of  the  Griffin  bill 
in  the  Assembly.  The  Callahan  bill  remained  in  com- 
mittee until  March  25,  when  it  was  withdrawn  by  its 
author. 

The  Assembly  committee  made  two  important  amend- 
ments to  the  Griffin  bill.  First,  the  measure  was  made  an 
eight-hour  instead  of  a  ten-hour  bill ;  and,  secondly,  the 
fruit  and  vegetable  industries  were  excluded  from  its 
provisions,285  as  had  been  done  in  the  case  of  the  Rush 


285  This   amendment   to   the   Griffin  bill  read   as  follows: 
"Provided,  however,  that  the  provisions  of  this  section  in  rela- 
tion to  the  hours  of  employment  shall  not  apply  to  nor  affect  the 
harvesting,  curing,  canning,  or  drying  of  any  variety  of  perishable 
fruit   or  vegetable." 


250  Woman's  Eight-Hour  Bill 

bill.  There  was  much  opposition  to  this  amendment,  but 
those  who  urged  it  insisted  that  women  who  work  in  the 
fruit  harvest  are  employed  only  during  the  summer 
months.  On  this  showing,  the  amendment  was  accepted, 
both  in  the  Committee  and  by  the  Assembly. 

When  the  bill  came  up  for  final  passage  in  the  Assem- 
bly, Bishop  offered  an  amendment  to  modify  the  measure's 
provisions  in  the  case  of  women  employed  in  laundries, 
and  dyeing  and  cleaning  establishments.286  But  Bishop's 
amendment  was  defeated,  as  was  his  second  proposed 
amendment  fixing  the  date  for  the  bill  to  go  into  force 
at  July  1,  1911. 

An  amendment  by  Farwell  to  include  "packing"  in 
the  list  of  fruit  and  vegetable  industries  where  women 
could  be  employed  more  than  eight  hours  a  day  was  de- 
feated also,  as  was  a  motion  by  Freeman  to  have  the  bill 
referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee. 

After  these  various  obstructions  had  been  cleared 
away,  the  bill  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  72  to  O.287 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  measure  by  the 

286  Mr.   Bishop's  amendment  was  as  follows: 

"Provided  further,  that  in  laundries  and  dyeing  and  cleaning 
establishments  women  may  work  during  the  first  three  days  of 
any  one  week,  nine  hours  per  day,  but  not  to  exceed  fifty-one 
hours  in  any  one  week,  or  nine  hours  in  any  one  day." 

287  The   vote    by    which    the    Griffin    Woman's    Eight-Hour    bill 
passed  the  Assembly  was  as  follows: 

For  the  bill — Beatty,  Beckett,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Bishop,  Bliss, 
Bohnett,  Brown,  Callaghan,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Coghlan,  Cronin, 
Crosby,  Cunningham,  Denegri,  Farwell,  Feeley,  Fitzgerald,  Flint, 
Freeman,  Gaylord,  Gerdes,  Griffin  of  Modesto,  Griffiths,  Guill,  Hall, 
Hamilton,  Harlan,  Hayes,  Held,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jasper,  Jones, 
Joel,  Judson,  Kehoe,  Lamb,  Lynch,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Maher, 
March,  McDonald,  McGowen,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Mullally,  Nolan, 
Polsley,  Preisker,  Randall,  Rimlinger,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco, 
Rogers  of  Alameda,  Rosendale,  Rutherford,  Ryan,  Sbragia,  Slater, 
Smith,  Stevenot,  Stuckenbruck,  Sutherland,  Telfer,  Tibbits, 
Walker,  Walsh,  Williams,  Wilson,  Wyllie,  and  Young— 72. 

Against    the    bill — None. 


Woman's  Eight-Hour  Bill  251 

Assembly,  it  had  met  with  little  positive  objection.  But 
within  a  week  after  its  passage  in  the  Lower  House,  ob- 
jections to  it  came  in  from  large  business  interests  in  all 
parts  of  the  State.  The  San  Francisco  morning  papers 
united  in  opposing  it,  claiming  it  to  be  too  rigid.288  Vari- 
ous industries  employing  women  petitioned  for  a  hearing 
before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Labor,  Capital  and  Im- 
migration to  which  the  bill  had  been  referred. 

A  meeting  was  accordingly  arranged.  Both  sides  were 
represented.  No  committee  room  was  large  enough  to 
accommodate  the  crowd,  and  the  hearing  had  to  be  held 
in  the  Senate  Chamber. 

Against  the  bill  appeared  representatives  of  laundry 
proprietors,  hotel  men,  manufacturing  confectioners,  cot- 
ton goods  manufacturers,  cracker  manufacturers,  and  de- 

288  The  remarkable  similarity  of  the  editorial  articles  opposing 
the  Griffin  bill  which  appeared  in  the  San  Francisco  Examiner  on 
February  21,  in  The  Chronicle  and  The  Call  on  February  24,  led  to 
the  belief  that  the  articles  had  been  prepared  by  the  same  person. 
This  is  probably  not  the  case,  but  there  is  good  reason  to  believe 
that  the  several  editorial  writers  were  governed  by  data  fur- 
nished by  San  Francisco  business  men. 

On  February  17,  a  number  of  San  Francisco  business  men,  with 
F.  W.  Dohrmann  at  their  head,  sent  a  protest  against  the  bill 
to  Sacramento.  The  protest  gave  ten  objections  to  the  bill. 

The  first  of  these  objections  (that  the  bill  was  unfair  to  women) 
is  given  in  the  editorial  articles  which  appeared  in  the  Chronicle 
and  Call. 

The  second  objection  (that  the  uniform  day  is  unpractical)  is 
reproduced  in  all  three  editorials,  as  is  the  third  objection  (that 
the  passage  of  the  bill  would  mean  less  employment  for  women). 

The  fourth  objection  is  reproduced  in  the  Chronicle  almost 
word  for  word.  The  Dohrmann  protest  says:  "It  (the  proposed 
law)  would  deprive  many  working  women  of  the  opportunity  to 
make  more  than  an  ordinary  day's  wages  during  a  season  when 
work  is  plenty."  The  Chronicle's  editorial  article  says:  "It  would 
operate  to  deprive  women  of  an  opportunity  to  make  more  than 
an  ordinary  day's  wages  during  a  season  when  work  is  plenty." 

The  other  six  objections  offered  by  Dohrmann  and  his  business- 
men associates  are  found  in  all  three  of  the  editorial  articles. 

The  comparison  clears  the  Examiner,  Call  and  Chronicle  of 
the  suspicion  that  their  editorial  articles  are  furnished  by  the 
same  person,  but  it  at  the  same  time  speaks  eloquently  of  the 
source  of  the  inspiration  of  the  editorial  policies  of  the  three 
publications. 


252  Woman's  Eight-Hour  Bill 

partment  store  proprietors.    And  this  opposition  was  most 
blunderingly  represented. 

The  most  reasonable  criticism  brought  against  the  bill 
was  that  its  terms  were  too  rigid.  That  was  the  point 
upon  which  appeal  with  some  likelihood  of  success  could 
have  been  made  to  the  committee.  But  in  the  series  of 
tirades  against  the  measure  in  which  the  bill's  opponents 
indulged,  this  point  was  scarcely  touched  upon.  The 
principal  contentions  were  that  in  the  event  of  the  bill's 
becoming  a  law  business  would  be  greatly  injured;  that 
women  would  be  thrown  out  of  employment;  that  those 
who  continued  at  work  would  have  their  wages  reduced. 
One  department  store  proprietor  went  so  far  as  to  declare 
that  the  passage  of  the  bill  would  hurt  the  Panama-Pacific 
Exposition. 

But  the  thing  that  created  the  most  unfavorable  im- 
pression was  the  indifference  of  some  of  the  speakers, 
particularly  of  a  number  representing  department  stores 
and  the  candy  manufacturers,  to  the  well-being  of  their 
female  employees.  Reluctant  admissions  that  during  rush 
seasons,  women  and  girls  worked  for  as  long  as  fifteen 
hours  without  a  rest,  further  weakened  the  position  of  the 
opposition.  This  was  illustrated  by  a  trite  observation  of 
Senator  Hurd,  a  member  of  the  committee,  who  was  pre- 
siding, when  objection  was  made  that  the  opposition  was 
taking  more  of  the  committee's  time  than  was  its  due. 
The  time  was  supposed  to  be  evenly  divided  between  the 
two  sides.  A  friend  of  the  bill  called  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  opposition  was  doing  all  the  talking. 

"If  I  were  you,"  advised  Hurd,  "I'd  make  no  objection 


Woman's  Eight-Hour  Bill  253 

to  their  talk.  Can't  you  see  they  are  making  votes  for 
your  bill  every  minute  ?" 

The  proponents  of  the  measure  scored  a  point  when 
the  department  store  proprietors  attempted  to  show  that 
the  passage  of  the  bill  would  mean  ruin  for  the  depart- 
ment stores. 

"Do  you  consider,"  interrupted  John  I.  Nolan  of  San 
Francisco,  who  appeared  in  support  of  the  bill,  "that 
Colonel  Harris  Wein  stock  of  Weinstock,  Lubin  &  Co. 
is  a  competent  department  store  manager  ?" 

The  speaker  replied  in  the  affirmative. 

Nolan  thereupon  read  a  letter  from  Colonel  Weinstock, 
in  which  Weinstock  regretted  his  inability  to  be  present 
to  testify  that  even  during  the  rush  holiday  season,  an 
eight-hour  day  for  women  would,  if  made  a  common  con- 
dition in  California,  work  no  hardship  upon  the  em- 
ployer.289 

The  committee  gave  a  second  hearing  on  the  night  of 
February  23,  which  did  not  differ  materially  from  the 
first  meeting.  The  only  result  attained  was  increased  bit- 


289  Colonel  Weinstock's   letter  was  in   full  as   follows: 
"My    dear    Mr.    Nolan: 

"I  regret  that  I  cannot  be  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  Legia- 
lative  Committee  this  Thursday  evening  which  is  to  consider  the 
eight- hour  bill  for  working  women. 

"If  I  were  present  I  should  be  glad  to  testify  to  the  fact  that 
in  some  of  the  several  mercantile  enterprises  in  which  I  am 
interested,  and  in  which  many  women  are  employed,  we  have 
been  working  practically  on  an  eight-hour  basis  for  women  with 
every  satisfaction  to  them  and  to  ourselves. 

"On  general  principles  I  am  as  an  employer  in  favor  of  the 
shorter  work  day,  and  if  the  eight-hour  day  in  mercantile  estab- 
lishments is  made  a  common  condition  in  California,  including 
the  Christmas  holiday  season,  it  will  in  the  end  work  no  hardship 
upon  the  employer,  it  will  be  a  blessing  to  the  woman  worker  and 
will  tend  to  make  for  a  higher  degree  of  efficiency  on  her  part. 
"Sincerely, 

"H.    WEINSTOCK." 


254  Woman's  Eight-Hour  Bill 

terness  of  feeling,  out  of  which  grew  rigid  determination 
on  the  part  of  the  proponents  of  the  bill  to  pass  it  as  it 
had  gone  through  the  Assembly. 

The  Committee  on  Labor,  Capital  and  Immigration 
fixed  the  hour  for  final  consideration  of  the  measure  at  8 
o'clock,  February  27.  When  that  hour  arrived,  the  com- 
mittee room  was  packed. 

Four  members  of  the  committee,  Bryant,  Cutten,  Hurd 
and  Larkins,  were  present.  The  absentees  were  Marti- 
nelli,  Wright  and  Juilliard.  Efforts  were  made  to  bring 
in  the  absent  members,  but  without  result. 

Finally,  the  bill  was  taken  up  for  discussion.  Bryant 
moved  that  it  be  reported  back  to  the  Senate  with  the 
recommendation  that  it  do  pass  (as  it  had  passed  the 
Assembly).  Senator  Cutten  seconded  this  motion.  The 
motion  prevailed  by  a  vote  of  three  to  one,  Larkins,  Cut- 
ten  and  Bryant  voting  in  the  affirmative;  Hurd  in  the 
negative. 

Senator  Hurd  joined  with  Senator  Leroy  A.  Wright 
in  a  minority  report.  In  this  report  a  substitute  bill  was 
offered,  which  fixed  nine  hours  as  the  woman's  work  day, 
and  excluded  from  the  provisions  of  the  measure  those 
engaged  in  the  harvesting,  curing,  etc.,  of  perishable  food- 
stuffs, when  necessity  for  such  extra  work  should  be 
shown. 

When  consideration  of  the  Hurd- Wright  substitute 
came  before  the  Senate  three  days  later,  Wright  moved  to 
re-refer  the  original  bill  and  the  substitute  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  Labor,  Capital  and  Immigration.  This  motion  was 


Woman's  Eight-Hour  Bill  255 

lost  by  a  vote  of  14  to  22.290    The  substitute  was  rejected 
by  a  vote  of  5  to  32.291 

The  opposition  to  the  bill  continued  until  its  final 
passage.  When  it  came  up  for  third  reading,  after  every 

290  The   motion   to   refer   the  bill   and   substitute   to   committee 
was  lost  by  the  following  vote: 

For  the  motion — Bell,  Birdsall,  Cutten,  Gates,  Hans,  Hewitt, 
Holohan,  Hurd,  Juilliard,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell, 
and  Wright— 14. 

Against  the  motion — Avey,  Beban,  Bills,  Black,  Boynton,  Bryant, 
Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cassidy,  Curtin,  Finn,  Hare,  Lewis, 
Martinelli,  Regan,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Shanahan,  Walker,  Welch, 
and  Wolfe — 22. 

291  The  prohibitive  clause  of  the  Hurd-Wright  substitute  meas- 
ure read  as  follows: 

"No  female  shall  be  employed  in  any  manufacturing,  mechani- 
cal or  mercantile  establishment,  laundry,  hotel,  or  restaurant,  or 
telegraph  or  telephone  establishment,  or  by  any  express  or  trans- 
portation company  in  this  State  more  than  nine  hours  during  any 
one  day  or  more  than  fifty-four  hours  in  one  week.  The  hours  of 
work  may  be  so  arranged  as  to  permit  the  employment  of  females 
at  any  time  so  that  they  shall  not  work  more  than  nine  hours 
during  the  twenty-four  hours  of  one  day,  or  fifty-four  hours  dur- 
ing any  one  week;  provided,  however,  that  the  provisions  of  this 
section  in  relation  to  the  hours  of  employment  shall  not  apply  to 
nor  affect  the  harvesting,  curing,  canning,  drying,  manufacturing 
or  packing  of  any  variety  of  perishable  fruit,  vegetable  or  other 
perishable  food  stuffs.  Provided  further,  that  the  provisions  of 
this  section  in  relation  to  the  hours  of  employment  shall  not  apply 
when  a  necessity  arises  in  any  of  the  employments  or  establish- 
ments hereinbefore  set  out,  for  additional  hours  of  work;  and  pro- 
vided further,  that  such  necessity  shall  be  deemed  to  exist  only 
upon  the  making  of  an  affidavit  by  the  responsible  head  of  such 
industry  or  establishment  that  a  necessity  has  arisen  therefor  and 
upon  the  filing  of  said  affidavit  with  the  Bureau  of  Labor  of  the 
State  of  California;  and  provided  further  that  such  period  of  neces- 
sity so  arising  shall  in  all  not  exceed  ninety  days  in  any  one  cal- 
endar year;  and  provided  further,  that  for  any  and  all  time  dur- 
ing said  period  of  necessity  so  deemed  to  exist,  the  employees  of 
said  industry  or  establishment  shall  receive  as  compensation  for 
such  additional  time  beyond  the  nine  hours  by  this  section  pro- 
vided a  sum  fixed  at  the  rate  of  one  and  one-half  times  per  hour 
the  compensation  for  the  said  nine  hours." 

The    Senate   rejected   the    substitute    by   the   following   vote: 

For  the  substitute — Gates,  Hurd,  Juilliard,  Thompson,  and 
Wright— 5. 

Against  the  substitute — Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Black, 
Boynton,  Bryant,  Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cassidy,  Curtin, 
Cutten,  Finn,  Hans,  Hare,  Hewitt,  Holohan,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Mar- 
tinelli, Regan,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Shanahan,  Stetson,  Strobridge, 
Tyrrell,  Walker,  Welch,  and  Wolfe — 32. 


256  Woman's  Eight-Hour  Bill 

delaying  move  had  been  exhausted,  Senator  Curtin  offered 
an  amendment  to  permit  women  to  work  fifteen  minutes 
over  the  eight  hours.  This  amendment  was  rejected  by  a 
vote  of  4  to  33.292 

Senator  Wright  moved  to  amend  to  make  the  woman's 
work  day  nine  instead  of  eight  hours,293  in  cases  of 
necessity,  and  providing  overtime.  The  amendment  was 
rejected.  Fourteen  voted  for  it;  twenty-four  voted 
against  it. 

Wright  then  moved  to  make  the  day  eight  and  a  half 
hours.  This,  too,  was  rejected,  as  were  amendments  by 
Wright  providing  for  a  weekly  half-day  holiday  to  be 
made  up  during  the  week,  and  to  permit  extra  work  in 
case  of  emergency,  provided  such  emergency  employment 
did  not  exceed  sixty  days  in  any  one  year. 

Senator  Strobridge  moved  to  amend  to  permit  women 
to  work  ten  hours  in  one  day,  but  making  no  change  in 

292  Curtln's  amendment  was  in  full  as  follows: 

"Provided  however,  that  for  the  purpose  of  completing  any 
particular  piece  of  work,  if  any  female  employee  shall  be  detained 
in  her  employment  longer  than  eight  hours  in  any  one  day,  if 
such  detention  is  for  the  purpose  of  completing  such  piece  of 
work  and  does  not  exceed  fifteen  minutes  beyond  said  eight  hours 
of  said  day,  the  employer  shall  not  be  deemed  to  have  violated  the 
provisions  of  this  Act." 

The  amendment  was  rejected  by  the  following  vote: 

For  the   amendment — Bell,  Boynton,   Curtin,   and  Thompson — 4. 

Against  the  amendment — Beban,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Black,  Bryant, 
Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cassidy,  Cutten,  Estu- 
dillo,  Finn,  Gates,  Hans,  Hare,  Hewitt,  Holohan,  Hurd,  Juilliard, 
Larkins,  Lewis.  Martinelli,  Regan,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Shanahan, 
Stetson,  Strobridge,  Tyrrell,  Walker,  Welch,  and  Wright — 33. 

293  Wright's  nine-hour  amendment  was  rejected  by  the  follow- 
ing vote: 

For  the  amendment — Avey,  Bell,  Birdsall,  Boynton,  Gates,  Hew- 
itt, Holohan,  Hurd,  Juilliard,  Roseberry,  Strobridge,  Thompson, 
Tyrrell,  and  Wright — 14. 

Against  the  amendment — Beban,  Bills,  Black,  Bryant,  Burnett, 
Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cassidy,  Curtin,  Cutten,  Finn, 
Hans,  Hare,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Rush,  Sanford, 
Shanahan,  Stetson,  Walker,  and  Welch — 24. 


Woman's  Eight-Hour  Bill  257 

the  weekly  limit  of  the  Griffin  bill,  leaving  the  total  num- 
ber of  hours  for  the  week,  forty-eight. 

This  amendment  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  12  to  27.294 

Senator  Kurd  introduced  the  last  of  the  amendments. 
Kurd's  amendment  provided  that  no  female  shall  be  em- 
ployed in  any  home  more  than  eight  hours  during  any  one 
day,  or  more  than  forty-eight  hours  in  one  week. 

This  amendment  was  actually  accorded  a  roll  call.  Six 
Senators  voted  for  it,  and  thirty-three  against  it.295 

This  brought  the  eight-hour  bill  to  final  vote  in  the 
Senate.  No  amendment  had  been  made  to  it — not  so 
much  as  the  change  of  a  comma — since  its  passage  in  the 
Assembly.  In  the  Senate  only  five  votes  were  cast  against 
it;  thirty-four  Senators  voted  for  it.296 

Thus  of  the  120  members  of  the  Legislature,  106  voted 

294  The  vote  on  Strobridge's  amendment  was  as   follows: 

For  the  amendment — Birdsall,  Boynton,  Estudillo,  Gates,  Hewitt, 
Holohan,  Kurd,  Roseberry,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  and 
Wright— 12. 

Against  the  amendment — Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Bills,  Black,  Bry- 
ant, Burnett,  Caminettl,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cassldy,  Curtin, 
Cutten,  Finn,  Hans,  Hare,  Jullliard,  Larklns,  Lewis,  Martlnelll, 
Regan,  Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Tyrrell  Walker  and  Welch — 27. 

295  The  vote  on  Kurd's  amendment  was  In  full  as  follows: 
For    the    amendment — Birdsall,    Cutten,    Estudillo,    Hurd,    Rose- 
berry,   and  Wright — 6. 

Against  the  amendment — Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Bills,  Black,  Boyn- 
ton, Bryant,  Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cassidy, 
Curtin,  Finn,  Gates,  Hans,  Hare,  Hewitt,  Holohan,  Juilliard,  Lar- 
kins,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Stetson, 
Strobridge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  Walker,  and  Welch — 33. 

296  The  Senate  vote  on  the  Women's  Eight-Hour  bill  was  as  fol- 
lows: 

For  the  bill — Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Bills,  Black,  Bryant,  Burnett, 
Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cassidy,  Curtin,  Cutten,  Estu- 
dillo, Finn,  Gates,  Hans,  Hare,  Hewitt,  Holohan,  Jullliard,  Lar- 
kins,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Roseberry.  Rush,  Sanford,  Shana- 
han, Stetson,  Tyrrell,  Walker,  Welch,  and  Wright — 34. 

Against    the    bill — Birdsall,     Boynton,     Hurd,     Strobridge,     and 
Thompson — 5. 
9 


258  Woman's  Eight-Hour  Bill 

for  the  bill ;  five  against  it ;  nine — one  Senator  and  eight 
Assemblymen — did  not  vote  on  this  issue  at  all. 

But  even  with  its  passage  in  Assembly  and  Senate,  the 
opponents  of  the  measure  did  not  cease  their  efforts 
against  it.  Delegations  visited  Governor  Johnson  and 
urged  him  to  veto  the  measure.  The  Governor  heard 
their  arguments,  and  the  arguments  of  the  proponents  of 
the  measure. 

Then  he  signed  the  bill  and  it  became  a  law.297 

297  Upon  signing  the  Women's  Eight-Hour  bill,  Governor  John- 
son issued  the  following  statement: 

"The  bill  prescribing  an  eight-hour  day  for  women  comes  to 
me  as  an  entirety.  I  must  either  accept  it  as  a  whole  or  reject 
it  as  a  whole.  I  cannot  modify  or  amend  it.  I  have  listened  to 
oral  arguments  and  have  received  many  written  arguments  both 
for  and  against  the  measure.  Independently,  the  question  has 
been  thoroughly  investigated  and  I  have  before  me  the  reports 
submitted  upon  legislation  of  this  character  not  only  in  this  coun- 
try, but  In  France,  Germany,  Switzerland,  and  England.  Beyond 
this,  some  investigation  has  been  made  by  my  office  among  those 
who  will  be  most  directly  affected  by  the  law.  While  a  less 
drastic  and  more  elastic  measure  might  have  been  preferable,  and 
while,  personally,  I  might  have  desired  that  legislation  upon  the 
subject  should  be  gradual,  still  the  advantages  of  the  present  bill 
outweigh  the  disadvantages.  Strong  men,  by  unity  of  action, 
have  obtained  for  themselves  an  eight-hour  day.  Shall  we  require 
greater  hours  of  labor  for  our  women?  As  long  ago  as  1872,  it 
was  enacted  by  Section  3244  of  the  Political  Code,  that  eight  hours 
of  labor  should  constitute  a  day's  work,  and  it  was  likewise,  by  the 
following  section,  provided  that  eight  hours  labor  should  consti- 
tute a  legal  day's  work  in  all  cases  where  the  same  was  per- 
formed under  the  authority  of  the  State,  or  of  any  municipal  cor- 
poration within  the  State,  and  our  law  has  gone  to  the  extent  of 
requiring  that  a  stipulation  to  that  effect  must  be  made  a  part  of 
all  contracts  in  which  the  State  or  any  municipal  corporation  is 
a  party.  The  policy,  therefore,  of  the  law  in  this  State,  is  of 
long  standing,  and  while  the  sections  quoted  refer,  of  course,  to 
public  work,  they  established  what  has  been  the  set  policy  of 
California  for  more  than  forty  years,  and  that  is  that  eight  hours 
shall  constitute  a  day's  labor.  The  limitation  of  the  hours  of 
labor  to  eight  is,  therefore,  by  no  means  new,  but  that  principle 
is  firmly,  and  doubtless,  irrevocably  established  in  California. 

"The  argument  against  the  eight-hour  day  for  women  is  purely 
economic.  It  is  asserted  that  it  will  work  hardship  upon  various 
business  enterprises,  that  these  enterprises  will  have  to  close 
and  that  financial  disaster  will  follow.  This  has  been  the  argu- 
ment ever  advanced  against  legislation  of  this  sort  and  even 
against  legislation  designed  for  the  protection  of  the  public  gen- 
erally, such  as  pure  food  laws.  When  the  first  shorter  hour  law 
was  adopted  in  England,  as  long  ago  as  1837,  Nassau  William 


Woman's  Eight-Hour  Bill  259 

Senior,  one  of  the  leading  political  economists  of  his  time,  insisted 
that  the  reduction  of  hours  of  labor  would  eliminate  profit  and 
bring  disaster  upon  employer  and  employee  alike.  The  English 
employers  then  with  the  utmost  vehemence  protested.  None  of 
the  ills  they  prophesied  occurred.  There  are  many  of  us  who 
remember  the  Child  Labor  Laws  and  how  at  the  time  of  the 
enactment  of  the  first  of  these  laws  in  our  State  many  of  our 
reputable  business  men  protested  with  earnestness  and  apparent 
sincerity,  asserting  that  they  could  not  compete  with  their  rivals 
and  that  the  enactment  of  such  laws  meant  their  ruin.  The 
laws  were  enacted  and  business  continued  just  the  same. 
Pure  Food  Laws  enacted  for  the  benefit  of  the  public,  the  pro- 
tection of  its  health  in  another  way  than  that  sought  in  the  present 
act,  were  for  years  resisted  upon  the  theory  of  the  outrage  that 
would  be  done  business  by  their  enactment,  and  the  great  losses 
that  would  be  entailed.  The  laws  went  into  effect,  and  business 
continued  just  the  same.  Two  years  ago  the  Legislature  enacted  a 
law  limiting  the  hours  of  men  working  in  mines  in  this  State  to 
eight  (Statutes  1909,  page  279).  Many  mine  owners  appeared  then 
and  insisted  that  if  the  law  went  into  effect  they  would  have  to 
close  down  their  mines  and  that  the  industry  upon  which  origin- 
ally rested  the  fame  and  romance  of  California,  would  be  utterly 
destroyed.  The  law  went  into  effect  and  to-day  the  same  mines 
are  running  with  the  same  profit,  and  the  same  employees. 

"The  hours  of  labor  of  men,  by  the  same  act,  in  smelters  and 
in  other  institutions  for  the  refining  of  ores  and  metals,  were 
limited  to  eight.  The  smelters  still  run,  additional  ones  are  being 
built,  and  the  subject  of  smelting  has  become  so  important,  even 
with  men's  hours  limited  to  eight,  that  it  has  engrossed  a  con- 
siderable portion  of  the  time  of  one  of  the  houses  of  the  Legisla- 
ture. 

"The  economic  argument  also  fails  because  experience  has 
shown  that  productivity  will  not  be  materially  decreased  under 
an  eight-hour  law.  The  report  of  the  New  York  Bureau  of  Labor 
Statistics,  1900,  states:  'Certain  facts  appear  with  distinctiveness, 
one  of  which  is  that  the  cotton  industries  of  Massachusetts  have 
not  only  grown  steadily  throughout  the  period  of  short  hour  legis- 
lation, but  what  is  far  more  impressive,  they  made  larger  gains 
than  are  shown  by  adjacent  States  with  less  radical  short  hour 
laws.'  This  quotation  is  in  line  with  the  statements  contained  in 
many  of  the  statistical  reports  that  I  have  investigated. 

"As  indicating  what  experience  has  shown  in  our  State,  where 
shorter  hours  have  been  given  women,  I  quote  this  telegram  re- 
ceived by  me  in  the  early  days  of  the  discussion  of  the  bill: 

"  'Highlands,    Cal.,    January   30,    1911. 
"  'Governor  Hiram  W.   Johnson, 
"  'Sacramento,  Cal. 

"  'Am  informed  that  Citrus  Protective  League  opposes  bill  re- 
ducing hours  of  labor  of  women  and  children  in  packing  houses. 
I  earnestly  recommend  the  passage  of  this  bill.  Two  years  ago 
the  Highland  Orange  Growers'  Association,  at  urgent  request  of 
women,  voluntarily  reduced  hours  of  labor  to  save  breakdown  in 
health.  Result  excellent.  Better  work,  better  health,  less  ab- 
sence. Long  ago  I  personally  reduced  picking  hours  in  the  groves. 
I  got  better  and  more  work  in  shorter  hours.  Hope  you  can  see 
your  way  clear  to  support  measure  protecting  women  and  children 
doing  piece  work  in  cold,  unheated,  barnlike  packing  houses. 
Claim  absurd  that  industry  will  suffer  by  passage  of  this  bill. 
Citrus  industry  will  be  greatly  benefited  by  shorter  hours.  Women 


26o  Woman's  Eight-Hour  Bill 

and  children  need  this  protection.  This  is  not  a  Labor  Union 
movement  alone  but  a  humanity  movement.  Protection  League  has 
not  referred  the  matter  to  packing  houses  and  the  opposition  of 
the  League  does  not  voice  the  wish  of  fruit  growers  of  great  High- 
land district  where  hours  have  been  voluntarily  shortened.  If 
you  approve  will  you  show  this  message  to  Senator  Avey  and  As- 
semblyman Bennink.  Publish  if  you  wish. 

"  '(Signed)   ALEXIS  FRYE.' 

"After  the  receipt  of  this  dispatch,  I  received  one  from  the 
Highland  Orange  Growers'  Association  endorsing  all  that  Mr. 
Frye  had  wired  me. 

"The  eight-hour  law  for  women  is  admittedly  right  in  princi- 
ple; it  is  the  exemplification  of  humanitarianism;  its  beneficent 
purpose  has  long  since  attached  to  men.  It  may  in  some  rare  in- 
stances work  hardship,  but  in  these  instances  we  may  hereafter, 
as  experience  demonstrates  the  necessity,  provide  a  remedy,  and 
I  shall  not  hesitate  in  the  future,  if  the  necessity  becomes  ap- 
parent, to  ask  any  proper  amendment.  I  do  not  believe  the  law 
will  result  in  grea,  disaster,  financial  or  otherwise.  I  think  that 
business  conditions  will  adjust  themselves  to  the  law,  exactly 
as  business  conditions  have  in  the  past  adjusted  themselves,  in 
every  instance,  to  remedial  legislation  of  this  character.  The 
purpose  of  the  act,  I  believe,  is  just,  and  I  have  therefore  at- 
tached my  signature  to  the  bill." 


CHAPTER  XXI. 
THE  COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION  BILL. 

Opposition  of  Labor  Representatives  Prevented  Passage 
of  a  Measure  Which  Was  Not  Entirely  Satisfactory 
to  Either  Side. 

The  labor  representatives  in  attendance  at  the  1911 
Legislature  regarded  the  defeat  of  the  so-called  Compul- 
sory Arbitration  bill 298  as  a  victory  quite  as  important  as 
the  passage  of  the  Employers'  Liability  act,  or  even  the 
Eight-Hour  bill. 

This  measure  was  strongly  urged  by  Colonel  Harris 
Weinstock.  It  was  based  upon  the  Canadian  Industrial 
Disputes  act,  and  applied  solely  to  railroads  and  other 
public  service  undertakings. 

The  measure  provided  that  in  public  services  a  strike 
or  lockout  should  be  unlawful  until  the  issues  in  dispute 
had  been  submitted  to  a  board  of  inquiry  of  three  mem- 
bers, one  member  to  be  nominated  by  each  side  to  the 
controversy  and  appointed  by  the  Governor,  and  the  third 
to  be  selected  by  the  first  two  appointees. 

In  the  event  of  the  two  members  failing  to  agree  upon 
a  third  within  three  days,  the  bill  provided  that  the  Gov- 
ernor appoint  the  third  member. 

This  board  was  authorized  to  make  full  investigation 

298  Senate    Bill    918,    described    In    the    bill    as    "The    Industrial 
Disputes  Investigation  Act." 


262      The  Compulsory  Arbitration  Bill 

into  the  matters  in  dispute,  to  send  for  persons  and  papers, 
administer  oaths,  compel  the  attendance  and  testimony  of 
witnesses,  and  report  its  findings. 

But  such  finding's  were  not  made  binding  upon  either 
party.299  Each  side  was  left  at  liberty  to  accept  or  reject 
them. 

The  proponents  of  the  measure  contended,  however, 
that  if  the  board's  report  were  fair,  neither  side  would 
dare  offend  public  opinion  by  refusing  to  abide  by  it. 

The  theory  upon  which  the  measure  was  drawn  was 
that  in  labor  disputes  affecting  a  public  service  there  are 
three,  rather  than  two,  parties  concerned,  namely,  the  em- 
ployees, the  employers  and  the  general  public.  The  most 
frequently  quoted  example  of  this  while  the  measure  was 
under  consideration  was  the  San  Francisco  street-car 
strikes,  involving  the  United  Railroads  and  its  em- 
ployees. It  was  shown  that  whereas  these  labor  disputes 
had  cost  the  United  Railroads  and  the  striking  carmen 
dearly,  the  further  effect  had  been  not  only  the  incon- 
venience of  the  public,  but  the  ruin  of  hundreds  of  busi- 
ness men  who  had  no  connection  with  either  side  of  the 
controversy.  To  save  the  third  party  in  interest  from  the 
attending  inconvenience  and  cost  of  strikes  and  lockouts 
in  public  service  enterprises,  the  proponents  of  the  "Com- 
pulsory Arbitration"  bill  contended  it  should  be  enacted 
into  law. 


299  Section  53  of  the  bill  provided  that  "No  court  of  the  State 
of  California,  shall  have  power  of  jurisdiction  to  recognize  or  en- 
force, or  to  receive  in  evidence  any  report  of  a  board,  or  any  testi- 
mony or  proceedings  before  a  board  or  as  against  any  person,  or 
for  any  purpose,  except  in  the  case  of  a  prosecution  of  such  person 
for  perjury,  or  a  judgment  entered  pursuant  to  an  agreement  under 
this  act." 


The  Compulsory  Arbitration  Bill       263 

On  this  point  the  bill  provided : 

( 1 )  No  employee  of  a  public  service  enterprise  should 
join  with  his  fellows  in  a  strike  until  after  the  inquiry  had 
taken  place. 

(2)  No  public  service  enterprise  should  declare  a  lock- 
out until  after  such  inquiry. 

The  proponents  of  the  bill  contended  there  was 
nothing"  in  the  measure  to  prevent  employees  quitting 
work  as  individuals,  for  any  reason  or  no  reason.  In 
the  same  way,  there  was  nothing  in  the  bill  to  prevent  an 
employer  discharging  his  men  as  individuals  for  any  rea- 
son or  no  reason. 

Furthermore,  after  the  Board  of  Investigation  had 
reported,  nobody  was  harmed  by  its  finding,  and  the 
strike  or  lockout,  regardless  of  the  justice  or  injustice  of 
it,  could  follow. 

There  were  two  sources  of  criticism : 

(1)  The  objection  was  raised  that  the  bill  did  not 
provide    for    compulsory   arbitration    at   all,    and    even 
though  it  became  a  law,  it  would  be  a  dead  letter  in  labor 
troubles  such  as  the  street-car  strike  at  San  Francisco. 

(2)  Organized  Labor  opposed  the  measure  on  the 
ground  that  it  interfered  with  the  personal  liberty  of  the 
individual  in  prohibiting  strikes  until  after  the  report  of 
the  Board  of  Investigation  had  been  published.300 

Furthermore,  it  was  contended  that  in  Canada  such  a 

300  "This  bill  if  enacted,"  said  the  report  on  Labor  Legislation 
issued  by  the  California  State  Federation  of  Labor,  "would  have 
seriously  hampered  the  workers  by  depriving  them  of  the  right 
to  quit  work  whenever  in  their  own  judgment  such  a  course  is 
necessary.  Moreover,  it  would  have  established  a  precedent  for 
the  extension  of  the  same  principle  of  compulsory  labor  to  the 
workers  in  private  industries,  leading  ultimately  to  the  legal 
prohibition  of  the  strike  in  general." 


264      The  Compulsory  Arbitration  Bill 

law  had  worked  against  labor,  by  causing  delays  which 
gave  the  employers  time  to  build  stockades,  import 
"scab"  labor,  and  otherwise  prepare  to  offer  effective 
opposition  to  their  discontented  employees.301 

But  it  was  on  the  ground  that  the  enactment  of  the 
bill  would  be  but  the  beginning  of  legislation  to 
outlaw  the  strike,  that  labor  took  determined  stand 
against  the  measure.  A  letter  protesting  against 
the  measure's  enactment  was  directed  to  every  Senator. 
For  days,  letters  and  telegrams  from  interested  constitu- 
ents, insisting  against  the  bill's  passage  poured  in  upon 
the  members.  Nevertheless  the  advocates  of  the  bill  put 
up  a  determined  fight  for  its  passage.  But  it  failed  to 
pass  even  the  house  of  its  origin.  When  it  came  to 
the  test,  twenty-two  Senators  voted  against  it;  only  six- 
teen voted  for  it.802 


soi  Labor's  general  distrust  of  the  bill  was  brought  out  during 
the  three-hours'  debate  upon  It  In  the  Senate,  when  It  was  up 
for  final  passage. 

Senator  Bryant,  for  example,  from  a  strong  San  Francisco 
Labor  Union  District,  put  this  Question  to  Senator  Boynton,  author 
of  the  measure: 

"Suppose,"  said  Bryant,  "this  bill  had  been  a  law  two  years 
ago  and  there  had  been  a  strike  on  with  the  Southern  Pacific 
Company,  If  the  Governor  had  been  called  upon  to  appoint  the 
third  member  of  the  arbitration  board,  whom  do  you  suppose  would 
have  been  favored?" 

Senator  Wright,  In  the  chair,  whitened  a  little  and  brought  the 
gavel  down  with  a  snap.  "The  question  is  out  of  order!"  he  de- 
clared. 

Bryant  took  his   seat. 

"If  the  bill  become  a  law,"  declared  Caminetti,  who  led  the 
opposition  to  It,  "it  will  cause  not  only  discord  between  capital  and 
labor,  but  political  discord." 

302  The  vote  on  Senate  Bill  918  was  as  follows: 
For  the  bill— Avey,  Bell,  Bills,  Boynton,  Estudlllo,  Gates,  Hew- 
itt, Holohan,  Hurd,   Roseberry,  Rush,  Stetson,   Strobridge,  Thomp- 
son,  Walker,   and   Wright — 16. 

Against  the  bill — Beban,  Birdsall,  Black,  Bryant,  Burnett,  Cam- 
inetti, Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cassidy,  Cutten,  Finn,  Hans,  Hare, 
Juilliard,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Shanahan,  Tyrrell, 
Welch,  and  Wolfe — 22. 


The  Compulsory  Arbitration  Bill      265 

Although  the  measure  was  by  no  means  satisfactory 
to  those  who  would  have  a  compulsory  arbitration  law 
enacted,  nevertheless  its  effective  opposition  came  en- 
tirely from  Organized  Labor.  Without  this  opposition, 
the  measure  would  probably  have  become  a  law. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 
THE  FREE  TEXTBOOK  MEASURES. 

Bill  and  Constitutional  Amendment  Were  Defeated  in  the 
Senate  After  Having  Passed  the  Lower  House. 

Labor  suffered  the  first  of  its  two  important  defeats 
before  the  1911  Legislature,  in  the  failure  of  all  proposed 
legislation  to  provide  for  furnishing  the  children  of  the 
public  schools  with  free  textbooks. 

Labor  is  thoroughly  committed  to  this  principle. 
The  policy  has  been  endorsed  by  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  and  by  the  California  State  Federation. 
The  Labor  legislative  representatives  went  to  Sacra- 
mento instructed  to  support  free  textbook  measures.303 

Several  such  measures  were  introduced,  but  the  two 
over  which  the  fight  was  made,  were  Assembly  bill 

303  In  the  report  on  Labor  Legislation  of  the  1911  session,  issued 
by  the  California  State  Federation,  the  failure  to  adopt  Assembly 
Constitutional  Amendment  16,  the  Free  Text  Book  amendment, 
is  made  subject  of  special  comment. 

The  Senate  vote  by  which  the  amendment  was  refused  adoption 
is  given,  and  is  followed  by  this  comment: 

"It  will  be  noted  that  seven  San  Francisco  Senators 
voted  against  this  measure,  which  is  a  part  of  the  platform 
of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  and  was  endorsed 
by  the  convention  of  the  California  State  Federation  of 
Labor." 

The  seven  San  Francisco  Senators  referred  to  were  Beban, 
Cassidy,  Finn,  Hare,  Regan,  Welch  and  Wolfe. 

Beban,  in  1907  and  in  1909,  was  elected  to  the  Assembly  as 
a  Union  Labor  party  candidate.  Finn,  Hare,  Welch  and  Wolfe, 
when  they  were  elected  to  the  Senate  in  1909,  had  Union  Labor 
party  endorsements,  and  owed  their  several  elections  largely  to 
such  endorsements. 


The  Free  Textbook  Measures         267 

113,304  introduced  by  Smith  of  Alameda,  and  Assembly 
Constitutional  Amendment  No.  16,305  introduced  by  Telfer 
of  San  Jose. 

In  the  Assembly  there  was  practically  no  opposition 
offered  either  the  Smith  bill  or  the  Telfer  amendment. 

The  Smith  bill  passed  the  Assembly  by  a  vote  of  67 
to  1,  Chandler  of  Fresno  being  the  only  member  to  vote 
in  the  negative.  The  Telfer  amendment  was  adopted 
without  a  vote  being  cast  against  it,  while  fifty-seven 
Assemblymen,  including  Chandler,  voted  for  it. 

The  appearance  of  the  measures  in  the  Senate,  how- 
ever, marked  the  beginning  of  opposition  which  event- 

304  Assembly  bill  113  provided  that: 

"The  county  superintendent  of  schools  of  each  county  shall 
each  year  prepare  and  forward  to  the  State  superintendent  of 
public  instruction  a  written  requisition  for  all  State  school  text- 
books required  to  be  used  in  the  common  schools  in  such  county 
for  the  following1  year;  such  books  shall  thereupon  be  forwarded 
to  him  at  such  address  or  addresses  in  the  county  as  he  may 
designate  before  the  opening  of  the  following  school  year,  and 
the  cost  price  of  such  books  at  Sacramento  together  with  the  cost 
of  transportation  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  common  school  funds 
of  such  county  upon  the  order  of  the  county  board  of  education. 
Such  books  shall  be  distributed  to  the  several  common  schools  of 
the  county  in  charge  of  the-  principal  of  such  school  and  shall 
remain  the  property  of  the  county  for  the  use  of  the  pupils  of 
the  several  common  schools  thereof  without  cost  to  such  pupils 
or  their  parents  or  guardians,  under  such  rules  as  shall  be  adopted 
from  time  to  time  by  the  county  board  of  education." 

305  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment  16  provided  that: 
"The   State  Board  of  Education  shall  compile,   or  cause  to   be 

compiled,  and  adopt,  a  uniform  series  of  text-books  for  use  in 
the  common  schools  throughout  the  State.  The  State  board  may 
cause  such  text-books,  when  adopted,  to  be  printed  and  published 
by  the  superintendent  of  State  printing,  at  the  State  printing  of- 
fice, and  when  so  printed  and  published,  they  shall  be  distributed, 
free  of  cost,  to  all  children  attending  the  common  schools  of  this 
State,  under  such  conditions  as  the  Legislature  shall  prescribe. 
The  text-books  so  adopted  shall  continue  in  use  not  less  than  four 
years  without  any  change  whatsoever;  and  said  State  board  shall 
perform  such  other  duties  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law.  The 
Legislature  shall  provide  for  a  board  of  education  in  each  county 
In  the  State.  The  county  superintendents  and  the  county  boards 
of  education  shall  have  control  of  the  examination  of  teachers 
and  the  granting  of  teachers'  certificates  within  their  respective 
jurisdictions." 


268         The  Free  Textbook  Measures 

ually  resulted  in  their  defeat.806  The  measures  were  op- 
posed in  the  Senate  Committee  on  Education  to  which 
they  were  referred;  they  were  opposed  on  the  floor  of 
the  Senate. 

The  Committee  flatly  recommended  that  the  Smith 
bill  be  defeated ;  while  it  took  a  non-committal  attitude  on 
the  Telfer  amendment,  sending  it  back  to  the  Senate 
"without  recommendation." 

Even  with  an  adverse  committee  report  against  it, 
the  Smith  bill  came  within  four  votes  of  passage  in  the 
Senate,  receiving  seventeen  votes  to  nineteen  cast  against 
it.807  Thus  in  a  Legislature  of  120  members,  eighty-four 
voted  for  the  Smith  Free  Textbook  bill,  twenty  against, 
while  sixteen  did  not  vote  at  all.  But  had  the  sixteen 
voted  against  the  bill,  then  only  thirty-six  votes  would 
have  been  registered  against  it  to  eighty-four  for  it. 
But  the  eighty-four  votes  for  it  were  not  distributed  in 
the  right  way,  and  the  twenty  negative  votes  cast,  and 
the  sixteen  possibly  negative  votes  not  cast  at  all,  de- 
feated the  purpose  of  this  overwhelming  majority  of  the 

see  Some  of  the  arguments  used  against  the  measure  were 
curious,  in  view  of  the  American  notion  that  the  State  owes  every 
child  a  free  education.  For  example: 

Senator  Eddie  Wolfe  stated  before  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Education,  when  the  Smith  bill  was  under  consideration,  that 
he  opposed  the  free  text-book  bill  because  he  believed  American 
boys  and  girls  should  not  be  taught  to  accept  charity. 

Assemblyman  Smith  very  pertinently  replied  that  all  other 
parts  of  the  school  system  are  accepted  as  the  children's  right, 
and  that  free  text-books  would  not  be  charity. 

SOT  The  Senate  vote,  by  which  the  Smith  bill  (A.  B.  113)  was 
defeated  was  as  follows: 

For  the  bill — Birdsall,  Boynton,  Caminetti,  Curtin,  Cutten,  Estu- 
dillo,  Hans,  Hewitt,  Kurd,  Juilliard,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Rush  Shana- 
han  Stetson,  Walker,  and  Wright — 17. 

Against  the  bill — Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Bills,  Black,  Bryant,  Cas- 
sldy,  Finn,  Gates,  Hare,  Holohan,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Roseberry, 
Strobridge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  Welch,  and  Wolfe — 19. 


The  Free  Textbook  Measures         269 

Legislature.  The  Free  Textbook  bill  did  not  become 
a  law. 

The  vote  on  the  Telfer  amendment  was  even  more 
significant.  Being  a  Constitutional  Amendment,  a  two- 
thirds  vote  of  the  Senate  was  required  for  its  adoption 
and  submission  to  The  People.308  Thus  the  votes  of 
twenty-seven  of  the  forty  Senators  were  required  for 
favorable  action. 

The  amendment  was  defeated  in  the  Senate  by  a  vote 
of  16  to  II.809 

As  has  been  seen,  in  the  Assembly,  fifty-seven  mem- 
bers voted  for  this  amendment,  while  not  a  member  voted 
against  it.  Thus  out  of  120  members  of  the  Legislature, 
seventy-three  voted  for  the  amendment,  and  only  eleven 
against,  while  thirty-six  did  not  vote.  But  forty-seven 
out  of  120  members — eleven  of  whom  voted  and  thirty- 
six  who  did  not  vote  at  all — blocked  the  purpose  of  sev- 
enty-three. The  People  of  California  were  denied  the 

308  Smith  In  his  "The  Spirit  of  American  Government,"  says: 
"All  democratic  constitutions  are  flexible  and  easy  to  amend. 
This  follows  from  the  fact  that  In  a  government  which  The  People 
really  control,  a  constitution  Is  merely  the  means  of  securing  the 
supremacy  of  public  opinion  and  not  an  instrument  for  thwarting 
it.  Such  a  constitution  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  check  upon  the 
people  themselves.  It  is  a  device  for  securing  to  them  that  neces- 
sary control  over  their  agents  and  representatives,  without  which 
popular  government  exists  only  in  name.  A  government  is  demo- 
cratic just  in  proportion  as  it  responds  to  the  will  of  the  people; 
and  since  one  way  of  defeating  the  will  of  The  People  Is  to  make 
it  difficult  to  alter  the  form  of  government,  It  necessarily  follows 
that  any  constitution  which  is  democratic  in  spirit,  must  yield 
readily  to  changes  in  public  opinion." 

809  The  vote  by  which  the  Free  Text-book  amendment  (A.  C.  A. 
16)  was  defeated  was  as  follows: 

For  the  amendment — Avey,  Bills,  Boynton,  Camlnettl,  Cutten, 
Estudillo,  Hewitt,  Jullliard,  Lewis,  Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Stet- 
son, Strobrldge,  Walker  and  Wright — 16. 

Against  the  amendment — Beban,  Bell,  Cassldy,  Finn,  Gates, 
Hare,  Holohan,  Martlnelll,  Regan,  Welch,  and  Wolfe — 11. 


270         The  Free  Textbook  Measures 

opportunity  to  declare  whether  or  not  it  is  their  wish  that 
school  textbooks  shall  be  issued  to  California  school  chil- 
dren free  of  charge,  the  same  as  public  school  tuition  is 
furnished  free  of  charge. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 
DEFEAT  OF  THE  "ANTI-INJUNCTION"  BILL. 

Measure  Was  Passed  in  the  Senate  By  Narrow  Margin, 
But  Defeated  in  the  Lower  House,  Because  of  the 
Inability  of  Its  Proponents  to  Compel  Action  Before 
the  Hour  of  Adjournment  Arrived. 

The  so-called  "Anti-Injunction"  bill  was  introduced 
by  Senator  Caminetti  of  Amador.309  Its  introduction  was 

309  The  full  text  of  the  Anti-Injunction  bill  (Senate  bill  985) 
was  as  follows: 

Section  1.  No  restraining  order  or  injunction  shall  be  granted 
by  any  court  of  this  State,  or  a  judge  or  the  judges  thereof,  in 
any  case  between  an  employer  and  employee,  or  between  employ- 
ers and  employees,  or  between  employees,  or  between  persons  em- 
ployed and  persons  seeking  employment,  or  involving  or  growing 
out  of  a  dispute  concerning  terms  or  conditions  of  employment, 
unless  necessary  to  prevent  irreparable  injury  to  property  or  to  a 
property  right  of  the  party  making  the  application,  for  which  in- 
jury there  is  no  adequate  remedy  at  law;  and  such  property  and 
property  right  must  be  particularly  described  in  the  application, 
which  must  be  in  writing  and  sworn  to  by  the  applicant  or  by  his, 
her,  or  its  agent  or  attorney.  And  for  the  purposes  of  this  act 
no  right  to  continue  the  relation  of  employer  and  employee,  or  to 
assume  or  create  such  relation  with  any  particular  person  or  per- 
sons, or  at  all,  or  to  carry  on  business  of  any  particular  kind,  or 
at  any  particular  place,  or  at  all,  shall  be  construed,  held,  con- 
sidered, or  treated  as  property  or  as  constituting  a  property  right. 

Sec.  2.  In  cases  arising  in  the  courts  of  this  State  or  coming 
before  said  courts,  or  before  any  judge  or  the  judges  thereof,  no 
agreement  between  two  or  more  persons  concerning  the  terms  or 
conditions  of  employment,  or  the  assumption  or  creation  or  ter- 
mination of  any  relation  between  employer  and  employee,  or  con- 
cerning any  act  or  thing  to  be  done  or  not  to  be  done  with  refer- 
ence to  or  involving  or  growing  put  of  a  labor  dispute,  shall  con- 
stitute a  conspiracy  or  other  civil  or  criminal  offense,  or  be  pun- 
ished or  prosecuted,  or  damages  recovered  upon  as  such,  unless 
the  act  or  thing  agreed  to  be  done  or  not  to  be  done  would  be 
unlawful  if  done  by  a  single  individual;  nor  shall  the  entering 
into  or  the  carrying  out  of  any  such  agreement  be  restrained  or 
enjoined  unless  such  act  or  thing  agreed  to  be  done  would  be 
subject  to  be  restrained  or  enjoined  under  the  provisions,  limita- 
tions, and  definitions  contained  in  the  first  section  of  this  act. 

Sec.  3.  All  acts  and  parts  of  acts  in  conflict  with  the  provi- 
sions of  this  act  are  hereby  repealed. 


272       Defeat  of  "Anti-Injunction"  Bill 

signal  for  the  opening  of  a  controversy,  which  continued 
until  the  day  of  adjournment. 

The  Senate  Judiciary  Committee,  to  which  the  meas- 
ure was  referred,  divided  upon  it,  sending  two  reports  to 
the  Senate.  The  majority  of  the  committee  recom- 
mended its  passage;  the  minority810  against  its  passage. 
This  was  on  March  8.  Twelve  days  later,  March  20,  a 
week  before  adjournment,  the  bill  came  before  the  Sen- 
ate for  final  action. 

Caminetti,  in  charge  of  the  bill,  compelled  attendance 

8io  The  majority  report  was  signed  by  Chairman  Stetson  for 
the  committee.  On  a  question  of  personal  privilege,  Stetson  made 
the  following  statement  regarding  the  report: 

"I  voted  with  the  majority  of  the  committee,  but  did  so  be- 
cause I  thought  there  were  excellent  features  in  the  bill,  and 
wished  to  see  it  considered  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate.  I  stated 
at  the  time  I  voted  that  I  should  not  finally  vote  for  the  bill 
unless  amended.  The  amendments  I  referred  to  are  those  sug- 
gested in  the  minority  report." 

The  minority  report  was  signed  by  Gates,  Wright,  Thompson, 
Bstudillo,  Boynton  and  Roseberry.  It  was  as  follows: 

"The  undersigned  members  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the 
Senate,  constituting  a  minority  of  said  committee,  to  which  com- 
mittee was  referred  Senate  Bill  No.  965,  being  "An  Act  to  regu- 
late the  issuance  of  restraining  orders  and  injunctions  and  proce- 
dure thereon  and  to  limit  the  meaning  of  conspiracy  in  certain 
cases,"  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following  minority  report: 

"The  bill  provided  that  no  injunction  or  restraining  order  shall 
be  issued  unless  it  is  necessary  to  prevent  irreparable  injury  to 
property  or  to  a  property  right.  It  then  proceeds  to  define  prop- 
erty, and  in  the  opinion  of  the  minority  of  the  Judiciary  Commit- 
tee to  place  an  unconstitutional  limitation  upon  property  rights  by 
the  use  of  the  following  language:  'And  for  the  purposes  of  this 
Act  no  right  to  carry  on  business  of  any  particular  kind,  or  at  any 
particular  place,  or  at  all,  shall  be  construed,  held,  considered,  or 
treated  as  property  or  as  constituting  a  property  right." 

"Under  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  California  one  of  the 
first  declarations  of  the  people  is  'that  all  men  are  by  nature  free 
and  independent  and  have  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which 
are  those  of  acquiring,  possessing,  and  protecting  property,  and 
pursuing  and  obtaining  safety  and  happiness.'  The  right  of  pro- 
tecting property  is  therefore  an  inalienable  one  which  is  as  dear 
to  all  Anglo-Saxon  people  as  the  right  of  life  and  liberty  itself.  We 
deny  that  it  is  within  the  power  of  the  Legislature,  by  a  legisla- 
tive act,  to  say  what  is  and  what  is  not  property.  The  right  to 
carry  on  business  if  that  business  be  a  legitimate  one  is  inalien- 
able. The  good  will  of  a  business  owned  by  an  individual,  a  co- 
partnership, an  association,  or  corporation  has  been  held  to  be 
property  from  time  immemorial.  In  this  respect  we  consider  Sen- 
ate Bill  No.  965  an  invasion  of  constitutional  rights  and  an  assault 
upon  the  right  of  property  and  we  therefore  respectfully  recommend 
that  the  bill  do  not  pass." 


Defeat  of  "Anti-Injunction"  Bill       273 

by  a  call  of  the  Senate,  although  the  hour  was  well  on 
toward  midnight,  and  the  Senators  had  been  at  work 
continuously,  if  committee  meetings  be  considered,  since 
10  o'clock  that  morning.  Nor  were  the  doors  opened 
until  thirty-six  of  the  forty  members  were  in  attendance. 
The  bill  was  then  passed  by  a  vote  of  22  to  14.311  Sen- 
ator Gates  gave  notice  that  the  following  day  he  would 
move  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the  bill  had  been 
passed.812 

This,  on  the  following  day,  Senator  Gates  did,  just 
before  the  noon  recess,  and  the  Senate  decided  to  take 
the  matter  up  that  afternoon  immediately  after  consider- 
ation of  the  third  reading  of  Assembly  bills.  Thus, 
every  Senator  had  opportunity  to  know  that  this  impor- 
tant Anti-Injunction  bill  would  be  up  for  final  consider- 
ation that  afternoon  after  the  third  reading  of  the  Assem- 
bly bills. 

When  the  third  reading  of  Assembly  bills  had  been 
concluded,  and  before  the  Anti-Injunction  bill  could  be 
taken  up,  Senator  Cassidy,  as  chairman  of  the  Commit- 


sii  The  vote  by  which  the  Anti-Injunction  bill  passed  the  Sen- 
ate on  the  night  of  March  20  was  as  follows: 

For  the  bill:  Avey,  Beban,  Black,  Bryant,  Caminetti,  Camp- 
bell, Cartwright,  Finn,  Gates,  Hare,  Holohan,  Juilliard,  Lewis, 
Martinelli,  Regan,  Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Tyrrell,  Walker, 
Welch,  and  Wolfe — 22. 

Against  the  bill:  Bell,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Boynton,  Cutten,  Estu- 
dillo,  Hewitt,  Hurd,  Larkins,  Roseberry,  Stetson,  Strobridge, 
Thompson,  and  Wright — 14. 

312  Under  the  rules  of  the  Senate,  on  the  day  following  that  on 
which  a  final  vote  is  taken  on  a  bill,  such  vote  may  be  recon- 
sidered on  the  motion  of  any  Senator,  provided  notice  of  intention 
to  move  to  reconsider  shall  have  been  given  on  the  day  on  which 
such  final  vote  was  taken  by  a  Senator  voting  with  the  prevailing 
side.  When  a  motion  to  reconsider  is  made,  if  twenty-one  Sena- 
tors vote  for  reconsideration,  the  bill  is  again  put  upon  its  final 
passage  and,  regardless  of  the  former  vote  upon  it,  passed  or 
defeated. 


274       Defeat  of  "Anti-Injunction"  Bill 

tee  on  Engrossment  and  Enrollment,  presented  two  re- 
ports. 

And  then  Senator  Cassidy  dropped  out  of  sight  as 
completely  as  though  the  earth  had  opened  and  swal- 
lowed him  up.  For  hours,  because  of  his  disappearance, 
the  members  of  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  California 
remained  locked  up  in  the  Senate  Chamber.  For  him  the 
force  of  the  Senate  sergeant-at-arms,  the  police  of  Sac- 
ramento and  San  Francisco,  and  the  sheriffs  of  a  half 
dozen  counties  scoured  the  country.  But  they  did  not 
find  Cassidy.313 

Twenty-one  votes  were  necessary  to  carry  Senator 
Gates's  motion  that  the  bill  be  reconsidered.  When  it 
came  to  the  vote,  thirty-four  Senators  were  in  their 
seats.  That  twenty-one  of  them  would  vote  to  recon- 
sider was  improbable.  The  Senate  doors  were  accord- 
ingly locked,  and  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  ordered  to  bring 
in  the  absentees. 

Four  of  the  six  absentees,  Avey,  Bills,  Welch  and 
Burnett,  were  brought  in  within  a  few  minutes.  After 
an  hour's  search,  Senator  Hare  was  found  and  brought 
in  also.  This  left  only  one  absentee,  Cassidy. 

A  canvass  of  the  Senate  showed  that  twenty  of  the 
Senators  present  were  for  reconsideration,  and  nineteen 
against. 

By  constitutional  provision,  in  the  event  of  a  tie  in  the 
Senate,  all  forty  Senators  voting,  the  Lieutenant-Gover- 
nor  has  the  deciding  vote.  Lieutenant-Governor  Wal- 
lace was  known  to  favor  reconsideration.  Thus,  with 


sis  The  story  was  published  the  following  day  that  Cassidy  had 
left  the  Capitol  so  hurriedly  that  he  went  off  with  another  man's 
hat. 


Defeat  of  "Anti-Injunction"  Bill       275 

Cassidy  present,  there  would  be  reconsideration  no  mat- 
ter how  Cassidy  might  vote.  If  he  voted  to  reconsider, 
he  would  furnish  the  twenty-first  vote  necessary  for  re- 
consideration. If  he  voted  against  reconsideration,  he 
would  tie  the  vote,  thus  giving  the  Lieutenant-Governor 
his  constitutional  right  to  decide  the  issue. 

Those  who  wished  to  defeat  the  bill  were  for  recon- 
sideration. Their  purpose  was  to  compel  the  attendance 
of  Cassidy.  Those  who  were  for  the  passage  of  the 
measure  proposed  that  the  vote  of  the  day  before  should 
stand.  They  accordingly  wished  to  defeat  reconsidera- 
tion. To  this  end  they  aimed  to  force  a  vote  on  recon- 
sideration before  Cassidy  could  be  found.  But  the  vote 
on  reconsideration  could  not  be  taken  while  the  doors, 
under  the  call  of  the  Senate,  were  locked,  and  the  doors 
could  not  be  opened  until  a  majority  of  the  Senators 
present  voted  to  open  them.  As  twenty  of  the  Senators 
were  for  reconsideration  they  could  keep  the  doors 
locked  until  Cassidy's  return.  And  this  they  proceeded 
to  do. 

The  call  of  the  Senate  had  began  at  half  past  five  in 
the  afternoon.  Many  of  the  Senators  had  not  taken  time 
for  lunch.  By  eight  o'clock  they  were  hungry  and  an- 
gry. Then  the  charge  was  made  that  Senators  had 
escaped  from  the  room.  The  roll  was  called  and  only 
thirty-five  of  the  thirty-nine  members  who  should  have 
been  present  answered  to  their  names.  Hare,  Campbell, 
Tyrrell  and  Hans  were  missing. 

Half  an  hour  later  the  four,  ostentatiously  and  ex- 
asperatingly  picking  their  teeth,  were  brought  in  by  the 
sergeant-at-arms.  It  developed  that  they  had  escaped 


276       Defeat  of  "Anti-Injunction"  Bill 

from  a  window  to  get  something  to  eat.  Their  hungry 
colleagues  excused  them. 

Later  on  sandwiches  were  brought  in;  cigars  were 
lowered  from  the  gallery;  the  Senators  engaged  in  a 
game  of  white  men  and  Indians,  with  Senate  files  and 
wastepaper  baskets  as  ammunition  and  the  President's 
desk  the  principal  fort;  visitors  filled  the  gallery  and 
gazed  with  astonishment  upon  the  unusual  scene.  Still, 
Senator  Cassidy  could  not  be  found. 

Along  toward  midnight  it  was  discovered  that  Sen- 
ator Hare  had,  for  the  second  time,  escaped  from  the 
room,  this  time  clearly  to  block  the  Senate  in  the  event 
of  Cassidy  being  found.  The  hunt  from  then  on  was 
to  find  Hare  as  well  as  Cassidy.  The  sergeant-at-arms 
was  directed  to  call  to  his  assistance  the  entire  police 
force  and  sheriff's  force  of  Sacramento  county,  and  of 
such  other  counties  as  might  be  found  necessary.  The 
search  was  extended  to  San  Francisco. 

At  one  o'clock  the  following  morning,  actors  from  a 
Sacramento  theater  were  brought  in  to  help  keep  the 
Senators  awake.  Later  on  a  band  was  introduced.  At 
3  o'clock,  nine  hours  and  a  half 314  after  the  call  of  the 
Senate  had  been  ordered,  a  curious  "gentlemen's  agree- 
ment" was  entered  into  between  the  two  factions.  The 
terms  of  the  agreement  were: 

(1)  The  Senate  was  to  be  held  to  be  in  continuous 
session,  whether  the  Senators  were  present  in  the  cham- 
ber or  not. 

(2)  No  Senator  was  to  raise  the  question  of  quorum. 

(3)  Every  Senator  present  was  held  to  be  bound  in 

si*  The  money  cost  to  the  State  of  keeping  the  Senate  in  ses- 
sion those  nine  and  a  half  hours  was  estimated  to  be  $1200. 


Defeat  of  "Anti-Injunction"  Bill       277 

honor  to  be  back  in  the  Senate  Chamber  promptly  at 
noon. 

(4)  The  proceedings  were,  at  noon,  to  be  held  to  be 
precisely  where  they  were  at  3  A.  M.,  the  hour  at  which 
the  agreement  was  entered  into. 

Upon  this  understanding  the  doors  were  opened  and 
such  Senators  as  desired  to  do  so  were  permitted  to 
leave.  Several  of  them,  however,  remained  in  the  cham- 
ber until  the  end  of  the  proceedings. 

Before  noon  both  Cassidy  and  Hare  had  been  found. 

Hare  was  captured  in  a  barber  shop;  Cassidy  as  he 
was  entering  his  apartments  at  Sacramento. 

But  when  the  hour  of  noon  arrived,  only  thirty-six 
Senators  were  in  the  Senate  chamber.  Hare  and  Cas- 
sidy were  detained  in  the  Sergeant-at-Arms'  office.  Sen- 
ators Finn  and  Beban  were  not  in  their  seats.  After 
waiting  until  12 :30  the  Senate  was  called  to  order. 

There  was  no  way  to  determine  officially  that  Finn 
and  Beban  were  absent  except  by  roll  call.  Senator 
Wright  moved  that  the  roll  be  called.  It  was  an  im- 
portant moment  for  the  absent  Finn  and  Beban.  But 
the  point  of  order  was  raised  that  a  roll  call  could  not  be 
had  during  the  call  of  the  Senate.315  President  pro  tem. 
Boynton,  who  was  in  the  chair,  held  that  the  point  was 
well  taken.318 

sis  My  own  notes  have  it  that  this  point  of  order  was  raised 
by  Senator  Wolfe.  The  Senate  Journal  of  March  21 — although  it 
was  afternoon  of  March  22,  the  Senate  by  parliamentary  fiction 
was  in  session  as  of  March  21 — shows  that  the  point  was  raised 
by  Senator  Shanahan.  Senator  Shanahan  informs  me  that  it  is 
unlikely  that  he  raised  this  point.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  roll-call 
could  have  been  compelled  on  a  motion  to  discontinue  the  call  of 
the  Senate. 

816  It  will  be  noted  that  the  previous  evening,  when  the  absence 
of  Campbell,  Hare,  Hans  and  Tyrrell  was  discovered,  the  roll  was 
called,  although  the  Senate  was  then  under  the  order  of  call  of 
the  Senate,  the  same  call  which  was  in  force  at  the  time  the  mo- 
tion affecting  Finn  and  Beban  was  made.  The  point  was  not  raised 
in  the  first  instance,  however. 


278       Defeat  of  "Anti-Injunction"  Bill 

In  the  midst  of  the  discussion,  for  Senator  Thompson 
insisted  that  under  parliamentary  practice  roll  call  was 
in  order,  Finn  and  Beban  entered  the  Senate  chamber. 
The  matter  of  roll  call  was  dropped,  and  Cassidy  brought 
before  the  bar  of  the  Senate. 

Wolfe  moved  that  Cassidy  be  excused  for  his  absence 
from  the  Senate  chamber. 

Senator  Thompson  moved  as  a  substitute  that  Cas- 
sidy be  permitted  to  take  his  seat,  and  that  further  con- 
sideration of  Wolfe's  motion  be  made  a  special  order 
for  Thursday,  March  23. 

The  vote  was  taken  on  Thompson's  substitute  motion. 

If  Thompson's  motion  prevailed,  Cassidy's  case 
would  be  given  consideration  before  a  vote  to  excuse 
him  was  taken. 

If  Thompson's  motion  were  defeated  then  Wolfe's 
motion  would  be  immediately  acted  upon,  and  Cassidy, 
in  all  probability,  excused  without  trial,  much  less,  pun- 
ishment. 

Thompson's  substitute  motion  was  defeated  by  a  vote 
of  15  to  21.817 

After  the  defeat  of  Thompson's  substitute,  Wolfe's 
original  motion  prevailed.  The  Senate  excused  Cas- 

817  The  vote  on  Thompson's  motion  was  as   follows: 

For   Thompson's   substitute:     Avey,    Bell,    Bills,    Birdsall,    Boyn- 

ton,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Larkins,  Roseberry,   Stetson, 

Strobridge,   Thompson  and  Wright — 15. 

Against    Thompson's   substitute:     Beban,    Black,    Bryant,    Cami- 

netti,    Campbell,    Cartwright,    Curtin,    Finn,    Hans,    Holohan,    Juil- 

liard,  Lewis,   Martinelli,  Regan,   Rush,   Sanford,   Shanahan,   Tyrrell, 

Walker,  Welch  and  Wolfe — 21. 


Defeat  of  "Anti-Injunction"  Bill       279 

sidy.318  Cassidy  took  his  seat.319  The  Senate,  which 
had  awaited  Cassidy's  coming  for  nearly  twenty  hours, 
resumed  the  session's  work  where  it  had  been  stopped 
the  previous  afternoon  by  Cassidy's  disappearance. 

Wolfe  moved  that  further  proceedings  under  call  of 

sis  The  excusing  of  Cassidy  was  generally  condemned.  Said 
the  Sacramento  Union  of  the  incident  in  its  issue  of  March  24: 

"The  nineteen-hour  call  of  the  Senate  became  a  farce  when 
Senator  Cassidy  was  promptly  excused  and  allowed  to  resume  his 
seat  without  even  a  reprimand.  The  people  of  the  State  will  not 
take  the  legislators  seriously  if  they  do  not  conduct  themselves 
with  some  dignity.  They  should  have  taught  Cassidy  a  lesson 
and  impressed  him  with  the  serious  nature  of  his  offense. 

"Cassidy's  excuse  about  the  visit  to  the  friend  and  his  beau- 
tifully innocent  story  of  ignorance  can  be  taken  for  what  each 
considers  them  worth,  but  the  fact  remains  that  he  cost  the  State 
several  hundred  dollars  in  the  idleness  of  the  Senate  and  in  prose- 
cuting the  search.  We  need  not  worry  over  the  discomforts  he 
caused  his  colleagues,  if  they  see  fit  to  overlook  them.  For  the 
sake  of  a  proper  respect  for  the  State's  law-making  body,  how- 
ever, we  think  the  irresponsible  Senator  from  San  Francisco  should 
have  been  severely  punished. 

"In  that  memorable  call  San  Francisco  held  a  prominent  place, 
for  during  the  long  hours  of  Monday  night  the  only  other  member 
to  give  the  Senate  trouble  was  Hare  from  the  same  city.  But 
that  was  not  all.  After  3  o'clock  in  the  morning,  it  will  be  re- 
called, the  Senators  under  solemn  promise  to  return  promptly  at 
noon  Tuesday  were  allowed  to  go  to  their  beds.  Noon  came,  but 
two  Senators  failed  to  put  in  an  appearance  until  it  was  conve- 
nient for  them  to  do  so.  Who  were  they?  Why,  from  San  Fran- 
cisco, of  course — Finn  and  Beban." 

319  Two  days  later,  March  24,  Cassidy  made  the  following  ex- 
planation which  will  be  found  in  the  Senate  Journal  of  March  24: 

"Mr.  President:  It  was  understood  that  there  would  be  no  night 
session  of  the  Senate  on  Tuesday,  March  22d  (21st),  and  after  ma- 
king my  report  as  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Engrossment  and 
Enrollment,  at  about  4:20  p.  m.,  I  was  called  to  attend  a  meeting 
of  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Public  Health  and  Quarantine. 
They  desired  to  consider  my  bill  (Senate  Bill  No.  961),  which  is 
known  as  the  'Oyster  Bill,'  and  had  been  pending  final  action  at 
their  hands  for  some  weeks.  After  leaving  this  meeting,  I  went 
to  my  committee  room,  that  of  Engrossment  and  Enrollment,  to 
ascertain  if  there  were  any  further  reports  to  make  before  ad- 
journment. I  was  informed  that  everything  had  been  reported  to 
the  Senate.  It  was  then  5  o'clock  p.  m.  Thereafter  I  left  the 
building  to  keep  an  engagement  which  I  had  made,  and  spent  the 
night  with  friends.  When  I  left  the  Senate  Chamber,  Senate  Bill 
No.  965  was  not  under  discussion,  and  no  call  of  the  Senate  was 
anticipated  by  me. 

"When  I  arose  the  following  morning  I  was  greatly  surprised 
to  read  the  press  accounts  of  the  Senate  call,  and  the  great  trouble 
my  absence  had  caused  the  members  thereof.  This  was  the  first 
knowledge  I  had  of  it. 

"I  desire  to  express  to  the  President  and  my  fellow  members 
of  the  Senate,  the  deep  regret  I  feel  for  this  unfortunate  occur- 
rence." 


280       Defeat  of  "Anti-Injunction"  Bill 

the  Senate  be  dispensed  with.  The  motion  prevailed. 
Hare  took  his  seat  without  being  questioned  as  to  his 
escape  from  the  Senate  chamber. 

On  the  question  of  reconsideration  of  the  vote  by 
which  the  Anti-Injunction  bill  had  been  passed,  Cassidy 
voted  in  the  negative.  This  tied  the  vote,320  with  all  the 
Senators  voting,  giving  the  Lieutenant-Governor  the  de- 
ciding vote. 

But  before  Wallace  could  announce  his  vote,  Wolfe 
raised  the  point  of  order  that  the  deciding  vote  vested 
in  the  Lieutenant-Governor  applies  only  to  the  vote  on 
the  original  passage  of  a  bill,  and  not  on  a  question  of 
reconsideration. 

President  Wallace  declared  the  point  not  well  taken, 
and  voted  for  reconsideration.321 

The  reconsideration  of  the  Anti-Injunction  bill  in 
the  Senate  was  accordingly  accomplished  by  a  vote  of 

320  The  vote  on  Gates's  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which 
the  Anti-Injunction  bill  had  been  passed  was  as  follows: 

For  the  motion  to  reconsider:  Avey,  Bell,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Boyn- 
ton,  Curtin,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Holohan,  Kurd,  Lar- 
kins,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Walker  and 
Wright— 20. 

Against  the  motion  to  reconsider:  Beban,  Black,  Bryant,  Bur- 
nett, Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cassidy,  Finn,  Hans,  Hare, 
Juilliard,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Tyrrell, 
Welch  and  Wolfe — 20. 

321  The  deciding  vote  was  cast  only  after  extended  debate  over 
Wolfe's  point  of  order. 

Senator  Wright,  in  opposing  Wolfe's  contention,  fell  back  upon 
the  Constitutional  provision  that  the  Lieutenant-Governor  "shall  be 
President  of  the  Senate,  but  shall  only  have  a  casting  vote  therein." 

Wright  contended  that  no  restriction  is  placed  upon  the  casting 
vote,  and  that  the  provision  holds  in  a  tie  of  the  Senate  in  a  mat- 
ter of  reconsideration  as  well  as  in  any  other. 

Senator  Wolfe  claimed  that  as  in  Rule  50  of  the  Standing  Rules 
of  the  Senate  it  was  stated  that  it  took  27  votes  to  carry  any 
motion  to  reconsider  any  Constitutional  amendment,  and  in  the 
same  rule  declared  that  it  took  21  votes  to  carry  any  motion  to 
reconsider  a  vote,  therefore  as  in  the  case  of  the  casting  of  27 
votes,  the  President  could  not  give  a  casting  vote;  and  as  in  the 
case  of  the  27  votes  the  President's  vote  could  not  in  any  event 


Defeat  of  "Anti-Injunction"  Bill       281 

21  to  20.  After  a  twenty-hour  fight,  the  proponents  of 
the  bill  were  for  the  moment  defeated. 

Senator  Wright  moved  to  amend  the  bill  by  striking 
out  the  provision  that  the  right  "to  carry  on  business  of 
any  particular  kind,  or  at  any  particular  place,  or  at  all," 
shall  not  for  the  purposes  of  the  act  be  held  to  be  a 
property  right. 

be  one  of  the  27,  so  in  the  case  of  the  21  votes  required  to  re- 
consider the  President's  vote  likewise  could  not  be  one  of  the  21. 

Senator  Wolfe  urged  on  the  Lieutenant- Governor  the  serious- 
ness of  the  situation  and  his  great  responsibility. 

Wallace  declared  his  agreement  with  Senator  Wolfe  in  the 
statement  that  as  President  of  the  Senate  he  was  placed  In  a  re- 
sponsible position,  and  stated  that  the  Senate  and  the  people  of  the 
State  would  not  consider  any  man  fit  to  preside  in  this  Senate, 
who  would  shirk  the  serious  and  the  disagreeable,  and  be  willing 
to  act  only  where  things  were  pleasant. 

The  Lieutenant-Governor  then  read  from  the  clause  of  the  State 
Constitution  quoted  above,  and  insisted  that  it  in  no  way  limited 
the  cases  in  which  the  casting  vote  could  be  employed.  He 
pointed  out  that  the  clause  referred  to  in  sustaining  Rule  50  of 
the  Senate,  which  required  21  votes  to  carry  any  motion  to  re- 
consider,  did  not  designate  the  kind  of  votes  nor  directly  nor  in- 
directly suggest  that  the  President  of  the  Senate  could  not  in  this 
case  as  well  as  in  other  cases  of  a  tie  give  the  casting  vote.  Wal- 
lace further  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the  recent  Con- 
gress, in  the  vote  on  the  Ship  Subsidy  bill,  Vice-President  Sher- 
man gave  a  casting  vote,  and  that  that  casting  vote  was  preceded 
by  either  one  or  two  motions  which  related  to  the  same  bill,  which 
resulted  in  a  tie,  and  in  which  cases  the  Vice-President  gave  the 
casting  vote,  though  they  were  subsidiary  motions.  Wallace 
therefore  claimed  that  unquestionably  Senator  Wolfe's  point  of 
order  was  not  well  taken,  and  that  the  President  of  the  Senate 
in  this  case  had  full  right  and  authority  to  give  the  casting  vote. 

At  this  point  Wallace  gave  his  vote,  aye,  and  was  in  the  act 
of  declaring  that  there  were  21  ayes,  when  Senator  Caminetti 
claimed  the  floor,  but  Wallace  declined  to  recognize  him  until  the 
completion  of  the  act  in  which  he  was  engaged,  and  proceeded 
to  say:  "Ayes  21,  noes  20;  the  motion  to  reconsider  is  carried." 
After  the  declaration  was  made,  Senator  Caminetti  claimed  that 
it  had  been  his  intention  to  appeal  from  the  ruling  on  Senator 
Wolfe's  point  of  order,  and  that  his  rights  had  been  infringed. 

Wallace  held  that  he  had  no  means  of  knowing  what  the  Sen- 
ator intended,  and  that  it  was  the  right  of  the  presiding  officer 
to  finish  the  item  of  business  that  was  almost  completed,  and 
that  without  interruption. 

After  some  desultory  discussion  by  various  members  of  the  Sen- 
ate, Senator  Curtin  made  the  point  that  the  President  was  within 
his  rights  when  he  determined  to  complete  the  item  of  business 
without  being  interrupted,  and  Senator  Stetson  stated  that  even  if 
Senator  Caminetti's  appeal  had  not  been  stated  as  such,  and  recog- 
nized, that  it  would  have  been  out  of  order  because,  If  the  appeal 
had  prevailed  it  would  have  been  set  aside  by  the  Constitutional 
provision  which  directs  that  the  President  of  the  Senate  shall  in 
the  case  of  a  tie  cast  the  deciding  vote.  In  other  words,  that 
Senator  Caminetti's  appeal  would  have  run  counter  to  the  plain 
provision  of  the  Constitution. 


282       Defeat  of  "Anti-Injunction"  Bill 

The  proposed  amendment  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of 
18  to  21.822 

Senator  Wright  moved  a  further  amendment  to  pro- 
vide that  in  all  labor  disputes  it  shall  be  unlawful  to 
threaten  injury  to  person  or  property. 

This  proposed  amendment  was  also  defeated  by  a 
vote  of  18  to  21.322 

The  bill  was  then  put  upon  its  final  passage,  and 
passed  by  a  vote  of  22  to  18.823 

The  fight  against  the  bill  was  then  transferred  to  the 
Assembly  side  of  the  Capitol. 

The  measure  reached  the  Assembly  on  March  23, 
four  days  before  adjournment.  In  the  ordinary  course 
of  legislative  business  it  was  referred  to  the  Judiciary 
Committee. 

Under  the  rules,  the  committee  had  ten  days  in 
which  to  report  upon  the  bill.  The  committee  took  the 
bill  up  on  the  afternoon  of  the  following  day,  but  before 
action  could  be  taken,  a  motion  to  adjourn  prevailed  by 
a  vote  of  9  to  5.  Late  that  night,  however,  the  committee 
met  in  special  session  to  consider  the  bill,  and  decided  to 
return  it  to  the  Assembly  with  the  recommendation  that 

822  The  vote  on  these  amendments  was  the  same  in  each  In- 
stance, as  follows: 

For  the  amendments:  Avey,  Bell,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Boynton, 
Curtin,  Cutten,  Estudillo,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Holohan,  Kurd,  Larkins, 
Roseberry,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson  and  Wright — 18. 

Against  the  amendments:  Beban,  Black,  Bryant,  Burnett^ 
Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cassidy,  Finn,  Hans,  Hare,  Juil- 
liard,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Tyrrell,  Walker, 
Welch  and  Wolfe— 21. 

323  The  vote  by  which  the  anti-Injunction  bill  finally  passed  the 
Senate  was  as  follows: 

For  the  bill:  Beban,  Black,  Bryant,  Burnett,  Caminetti,  Camp- 
bell, Cartwright,  Cassidy,  Finn,  Hans,  Hare,  Jujlliard,  Lewis,  Mar- 
tinelli, Regan,  Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Tyrrell,  Walker,  Welch 
and  Wolfe — 22. 

Against  the  bill:  Avey,  Bell,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Boynton,  Curtin, 
Cutten,  Estudillo,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Holohan,  Hurd,  Larkins,  Rose- 
berry,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson  and  Wright — 18. 


Defeat  of  "Anti-Injunction"  Bill       283 

it  do  not  pass.  This  was  done  on  Saturday  morning, 
March  25. 

Under  the  Constitution,  a  bill  before  it  can  become  a 
law,  must  be  read  on  three  several  days  in  each  House, 
unless,  by  a  two-thirds  vote,  the  House  in  which  the  bill 
is  pending  shall,  as  a  matter  of  urgency,  dispense  with 
this  constitutional  provision. 

When  the  Anti-Injunction  bill  was  returned  from  the 
committee,  it  had  been  read  once  only.  Unless  two- 
thirds  of  the  Assembly,  fifty-four  members,  voted  to 
suspend  the  constitution,  the  measure  would  have  to  be 
read  on  two  separate  days.  There  remained  three  days 
before  adjournment,  Saturday,  Sunday  and  Monday. 

Saturday  and  Sunday  passed  without  the  bill  having 
been  read  for  the  second  time.  With  the  coming  of  the 
last  day  of  the  session,  the  only  way  in  which  it  could 
be  put  upon  its  passage  was  by  suspending  the  Constitu- 
tion. This  required  fifty-four  votes. 

Coghlan  of  San  Francisco  introduced  a  resolution  for 
the  suspension  of  the  Constitution.  But  instead  of  re- 
ceiving the  fifty-four  votes  necessary  for  its  adoption, 
only  thirty-four  were  cast  for  it  to  forty  against  it.32* 

And  the  Anti-Injunction  bill  had  failed  of  enactment 
into  law. 

324  The  vote  on  Coghlan's  resolution  to  make  the  anti-Injunc- 
tion bill  a  matter  of  urgency  was  as  follows: 

For  the  resolution:  Beatty,  Brown,  Callaghan,  Coghlan,  Cro- 
nin,  Cunningham,  Denegri,  Feeley,  Griffin  of  Modesto,  Guill,  Hall, 
Hayes,  Kennedy,  Lynch.  Maher,  Malone,  March,  McDonald,  Mc- 
Gowen,  Mullally,  Polsley,  Rimlinger,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco, 
Rosendale,  Ryan,  Sbragia,  Schmitt,  Slater,  Smith,  Stuckenbruck, 
Telfer,  Walker,  Walsh  and  Williams — 34. 

Against  the  resolution:  Beckett,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Bishop, 
Bliss,  Bohnett,  Butler,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Cogswell,  Crosby, 
Farwell,  Flint,  Freeman,  Gaylord,  Griffiths,  Hamilton,  Harlan, 
Held,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jasper,  Jones,  Joel,  Judson,  Ke- 
hoe,  Lamb,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Preisker, 
Randall,  Rogers  of  Alameda,  Stevenot,  Sutherland,  Tibbite,  Wyllie, 
Young — 40. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 
REAPPORTIONMENT. 

Shifting  of  Population  to  Large  Cities,  for  the  First  Time 
in  the  State's  History  Presented  Problems  in  Re- 
districting  the  State  Which  the  Legislature  Failed  to 
Meet. 

The  lines  of  division  between  Northern  and  Southern 
California  were  more  sharply  drawn  at  the  1911  session 
than  at  any  previous  meeting  of  the  Legislature.  For 
the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  State,  too,  a  second  line 
of  division,  that  between  large  centers  of  population  and 
the  rural  and  suburban  districts,  became  an  important 
factor  in  shaping  legislation.  The  dividing  lines  crossed 
and  recrossed.  Antagonistic  members  on  one  sectional 
issue  found  themselves  close  allies  on  another.  Thus  on 
the  question  of  establishing  in  Southern  California  a 
State  School,  which  it  was  charged  would  have  ap- 
proached the  State  University  in  importance,  the  Los 
Angeles  and  the  Alameda  county  delegations — in  the 
main  progressive,  by  the  way — were  hopelessly  divided. 
But  when  it  came  to  turning  the  San  Pedro  waterfront 
over  to  the  city  of  Los  Angeles  and  the  Oakland  water- 
front over  to  Oakland,  the  two  groups  became  firm 
allies  again. 

The  key  to  the  situation  is  found  in  extraordinary  in- 
crease in  population  in  Los  Angeles  and  Alameda  coun- 


Reapportionment  285 

ties,  and  the  comparatively  slight  increase  in  San  Fran- 
cisco county. 

For  the  ten  years  ending  in  1910,  the  population  of 
San  Francisco  county  increased  from  342,782  to  416,912, 
an  increase  of  not  quite  22  per  cent.  The  increase  in 
Alameda  county  was  nearly  90  per  cent,  from  130,197 
in  1900  to  246,131  in  1910;  while  in  Los  Angeles  county 
the  increase  was  from  170,298  in  1900  to  504,131  in 
1910,  an  increase  of  about  220  per  cent. 

Thus  in  1900,  the  population  of  San  Francisco  county 
was  more  than  double  that  of  Los  Angeles ;  but  in  1910, 
the  population  of  Los  Angeles  county  was  almost  100,- 
000  more  than  that  of  San  Francisco.  This  not  only 
touched  the  vanity  of  San  Francisco  politicians,  but,  as 
will  be  seen  in  a  moment,  their  prestige. 

Add  to  this,  the  different  policies  in  treating  the  labor 
problem  pursued  by  Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco,  and 
the  not-very-well-understood  struggle  for  control  of  the 
waterfronts  of  the  several  California  seaports,  and  we 
have  the  basis  of  sectional  division  which  will  play  an 
important  part  in  the  politics  of  California  during  the 
next  ten  years. 

The  public  service  corporation  element,  which,  in  con- 
nection with  the  gambling  and  tenderloin  interests,  con- 
trolled until  the  1910  election,  the  politics  of  the  State, 
sees  its  opportunity  to  recover  lost  ground,  by  playing 
section  against  section,  interest  against  interest.  Al- 
though hint  of  this  was  given  at  the  1911  session,  its 
more  complete  expression  will  come  at  the  sessions  of 
1913  and  1915. 

The  primary  division  that  came  in  the  1911  Legisla- 


286  Reapportionment 

ture,  because  of  new  conditions  and  issues,  was  on  the 
reapportionment  of  the  State  into  Assembly  and  Sena- 
torial districts. 

This  reapportionment  is  made  once  every  ten  years, 
following  the  Federal  census.  The  Senatorial  and  As- 
sembly representation  is  based  on  population.  In  theory, 
each  one-fortieth  of  the  State  population  is  entitled  to 
a  Senator,  and  each  one-eightieth  to  an  Assemblyman, 
there  being  forty  members  in  the  Senate,  and  eighty 
members  in  the  Assembly. 

San  Francisco  for  the  ten  years  ending  1911,  had 
named  nine  more  Assemblymen  and  four  more  State 
Senators  than  had  Los  Angeles.  But  under  the  new 
apportionment,  if  based  on  population,  Los  Angeles 
county  would  have  one  more  Senator  and  two  more 
Assemblymen  than  San  Francisco,  and  San  Francisco's 
legislative  prestige  would  be  gone. 

Incidentally,  the  proportionate  strength  of  rural  dis- 
tricts would  be  greatly  diminished.  The  following  table 
will  show  at  a  glance  where  the  changes  in  legislative 
representation  would  come: 


Reapportionment 


287 


Legislative 
Representation 
Basis  of 
Population. 

Changes. 

1901   to 
1911. 

1911  to 
1921. 

Gains. 

Losses. 

Senate. 

Assembly. 

Senate. 

Assembly. 

Senate. 

Assembly. 

Senate. 

Assembly. 

<->  m 
.H  v 

rt  S 
<v  i^i 

<  6> 

C/3 

Los    Angeles... 
Alameda    

5 
4 
9 

18 
22 

9 

7 
18 

34 
46 

8 
4 

7 

19 
21 

16 
8 
14 

38 
42 

3 
1 

7 
1 

4 

"2 
1 

'4 

4 

4,000 
840 
42 

4,882 
153,415 

San  Francisco.  . 
Total  for  three 
Counties    .... 
Total      for      55 
other  Counties 

Thus  Alameda  and  Los  Angeles  counties  together, 
on  the  strict  basis  of  population,  would  gain  three  State 
Senators  and  eight  Assemblymen.  On  the  same  basis, 
two  of  the  Senators  and  four  of  the  Assemblymen  to  go 
to  Alameda  and  Los  Angeles  counties  would  be  taken 
from  San  Francisco  county,  and  one  Senator  and  four 
Assemblymen  would  come  from  the  55  counties  of  the 
State,  which  under  the  1901-11  apportionment  had  sent 
to  the  Legislature  only  twenty-two  out  of  forty  Senators, 
and  forty-six  out  of  the  eighty  Assemblymen.  The  fur- 
ther reduction  would  give  these  fifty-five  counties  twenty- 
one  Senators,  while  Alameda,  Los  Angeles  and  San 
Francisco  would  have  nineteen ;  and  forty-two  Assem- 
blymen, while  the  three  counties  named  would  have 
thirty-eight.  And  the  fifty-five  counties  with  the  slim 
legislative  representation,  embrace  of  the  State's  area 


288  Reapportionment 

153,415  square  miles;  while  the  three  counties  with  the 
big  representation  contain  only  4,882  square  miles. 

The  situation  led  to  two  distinct  policies  on  reappor- 
tionment,  which  split  the  Legislature  into  two  hostile 
camps,  that  were  as  far  apart  when  the  Legislature  ad- 
journed as  when  it  convened. 

The  first  policy  was  based  on  the  theory  that  large 
centers  of  population  should  not  be  given  control  of  the 
Legislature.  The  proponents  of  this  theory  in  tentative 
reapportionment  schemes,  proceeded  to  take  representa- 
tion from  the  cities — that  is,  from  Los  Angeles  and  San 
Francisco — and  increase  the  rural  representation  to  more 
than,  on  the  basis  of  population,  the  country  districts 
were  entitled.825 

This  policy  found  expression  in  the  so-called  Randall 

825  Sec.  6  Art.  IV  of  the  Constitution  provides  that,  "for  the 
purpose  of  choosing  members  of  the  Legislature  the  State  shall  be 
divided  into  forty  Senatorial  and  eighty  Assembly  districts,  as 
nearly  equal  in  population  as  may  be.  ...  In  the  formation  of 
such  districts  no  county,  or  city  and  county,  shall  be  divided  un- 
less it  contains  sufficient  population  within  itself  to  form  two  or 
more  districts,  nor  shall  a  part  of  any  county,  or  of  any  city  and 
county,  be  united  with  any  other  county,  or  city  and  county,  in 
forming  any  district." 

Assemblyman  Randall's  interpretation  of  this  section  is  as  fol- 
lows: 

"As  has  been  well  heralded,  the  (Randall)  bill  was  drawn  upon 
the  theory  that  the  Constitution  was  made  for  the  benefit  of  the 
State  at  large  as  well  as  the  congested  centers  of  population. 
Some  reapportioners  insist  upon  making  a  census  assignment  of 
districts  to  San  Francisco,  Alameda  and  Los  Angeles  counties  first 
of  all,  distributing  whatever  residue  there  may  be  to  the  other 
55  counties  of  the  State.  Yet  the  Constitution  does  not  even 
mention  San  Francisco  or  Los  Angeles,  but  that  instrument  does 
mention  a  certain  other  political  organization  specifically  and  em- 
phatically. 

"It  declares  for  the  protection  of  the  county  as  organized 
under  the  laws  of  this  State.  Demolishment  of  county  integrity 
is  placed  under  the  ban  in  words  which  cannot  be  misunderstood: 
'no  county  shall  be  divided  and  any  portion  be  attached  to  any 
other  county  in  forming  such  (legislative)  district.'  , 

"Here  is  an  express  recognition  by  the  Constitution  that  legis- 
lative districts  may  not  all  be  of  the  same  population,  because  no 
two  counties  are  of  the  same  population.  And  the  only  require- 
ment of  the  Constitution  that  they  shall  be  of  equal  population  is 
qualified  by  the  words  'as  near  as  may  be,'  its  framers,  no  doubt. 


Reapportionment  289 

bill,  drawn  by  Assemblyman  Charles  H.  Randall  of  Los 
Angeles. 

The  measure  had  the  support,  generally  speaking,  of 
members  from  the  country  districts,  and  of  most,  but  not 
all,  of  the  Los  Angeles  delegation. 

The  second  policy  was  not  based  so  much  on  theory 
as  on  desire  of  the  San  Francisco  delegation  to  retain  its 
legislative  representation.  Under  this  plan,  San  Fran- 
cisco would  have  been  allowed  at  least  two  Assembly- 
men and  one  Senator  more  than  its  population  warranted. 
To  do  this,  it  was  proposed  to  take  from  the  already 
pinched  country,  and  to  give  to  San  Francisco.328  This 
was  known  as  the  Welch  plan,  Senator  Welch  of  San 
Francisco  being  its  principal  sponsor. 

The  Randall  bill,  as  originally  introduced,  gave  Ala- 
meda  and  Los  Angeles  counties  the  legislative  repre- 

having  in  mind  the  prohibition  laid  upon  destruction  of  the  county 
unit. 

"Following  these  rules  laid  down  by  the  Constitution,  we  are 
confronted  by  the  fact  that  11  or  more  counties  in  this  State  con- 
tain from  16,000  to  27,000  population  each.  The  ascertained  ratio 
of  population  for  an  Assembly  district  is  30,000.  If  strict  census 
figures  are  to  be  followed,  then  these  counties  will  all  suffer,  for 
Assembly  districts  cannot  be  assigned  in  full  to  the  cities  on  the 
census  ratio,  and  also  furnish  representation  for  each  of  these 
counties,  as  contemplated  by  the  highest  law  of  the  State. 

"A  common-sense  interpretation  of  the  Constitution  would 
seem  to  require  the  erection  of  an  Assembly  district  in  every 
county  which  contains  a  population  equal  to  the  major  fraction 
of  the  ratio,  that  ratio  being  30,000.  Other  counties  of  even  less 
population,  Imperial  for  instance,  cannot  be  deprived  of  an  As- 
semblyman, under  the  Constitution,  because  its  geographical  situa- 
tion will  not  allow  of  its  annexation  to  any  other  county. 

"It  is  clearly  manifest  that  when  a  fair  apportionment  is  made 
to  the  minority  counties,  the  large  centers  of  population  cannot 
expect  to  draw  a  full  ratio  allotment.  The  actual  ratio  left  to  them 
is  about  40,000  per  district,  just  as  provided  in  the  Randall  bill." 

826  For  the  decade  ending  in  1901,  the  combined  legislative  rep- 
resentation of  San  Francisco,  Alameda  and  Los  Angeles  was  only 
15  Senators  and  30  Assemblymen:  the  other  counties  of  the  State 
having  25  Senators  and  50  Assemblymen.  It  will  be  seen  that  in 
1901,  the  outside  counties  lost  three  Senators  and  four  Assembly- 
men. By  the  1901  reapportionment  Alameda  gained  one  Senator 
and  one  Assemblyman,  and  Los  Angeles  two  Senators  and  three 
Assemblymen. 
10 


290  Reapportionment 

sentation  to  which  they  are  entitled  on  the  basis  of  popu- 
lation, that  is  to  say,  eight  Assemblymen  and  four  Sen- 
ators for  Alameda,  and  sixteen  Assemblymen  and  eight 
Senators  for  Los  Angeles.  But  San  Francisco,  entitled 
on  the  population  basis  to  seven  Senators  and  fourteen 
Assemblymen,  was  given  only  six  Senators  and  thirteen 
Assemblymen.  This  meant  a  total  loss  to  San  Francisco 
of  three  Senators  and  five  Assemblymen. 

But  further  reduction  was  in  store  for  San  Francisco. 

On  March  16,  the  Randall  bill  was  amended  to  give 
Los  Angeles S2T  fourteen  Assemblymen  and  seven  Sen- 
ators, two  Assemblymen  and  one  Senator  less  than  that 
county  would  have  on  a  population  basis,  while  San 
Francisco  was  given  six  Senators  and  ten  Assemblymen, 
one  Senator  and  four  Assemblymen  less  than  that  city's 
population  warrants.328  This  meant  a  total  loss  to  San 

327  This  reduction  did  not  suit  Los  Angeles  at  all.  Senator 
Thompson  of  Los  Angeles  did  not  anprove  the  measure,  nor  did 
Meyer  Lissner,  Chairman  of  the  Republican  State  Central  Com- 
mittee, and  prominent  in  Southern  California  politics.  The  oft- 
repeated  charge  of  the  San  Francisco  Call  that  Lissner  dictated 
the  Randall  bill  is  not  borne  out  by  the  developments  of  the  ses- 
sion. 

828  At  a  meeting  of  San  Francisco  commercial  and  industrial 
bodies,  called  to  protest  against  the  Randall  bill,  the  following  reso- 
lution was  adopted: 

"Resolved,  That  it  be  the  sense  of  this  meeting  that  we  insist 
that,  in  the  matter  of  reapportionment  of  the  State  of  California, 
San  Francisco  be  treated  with  that  degree  of  fairness  our  delega- 
tion in  the  Legislature  has  invariably  extended  to  all  portions  of 
this  great  State,  and  we  request  that  the  fact  that  10  years  shall 
elapse  before  another  reapportionment  takes  place,  and  within  that 
time  San  Francisco  shall  have  added  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
population,  shall  be  taken  into  consideration;  and,  be  it  further 

"Resolved,  That  we  ask  all  friends  of  California  to  oppose  the 
Randall  bill  on  reapportionment  as  unfair  in  its  treatment  of  San 
Francisco  and  that  they  favor  Senate  bill  No.  780,  introduced  by 
Senator  Welch." 

Said  the  San  Francisco  Examiner  of  the  passage  of  the  Randall 
bill: 

"The  reapportionment  bill  jammed  through  the  Assembly  pro- 
poses a  clear  steal  of  four  Assemblymen  from  San  Francisco.  On 
the  census  returns  this  city  is  entitled  to  fourteen  Assembly  dis- 
tricts. The  Randall  bill  proposes  to  give  but  ten." 


Reapportionment  291 

Francisco  of  three  Senators  and  eight  Assemblymen. 
Although  the  amended  Randall  bill  met  with  the  most 
bitter  denunciation  from  San  Francisco  interests,  it 
passed  the  Assembly  by  a  vote  of  47  to  20.329 

In  the  Senate,  the  Randall  bill  went  to  the  Committee 
on  Apportionment  and  Representation.  The  measure 
never  left  the  committee. 

The  so-called  Welch  plan  of  reapportionment  did  not 
find  expression  until  the  middle  of  March.  The  Reap- 
portionment bill  which  Welch  had  introduced  (S.  B. 
780)  did  not  give  expression  to  the  plan.  Indeed,  this 
bill  was  scarcely  a  reapportionment  measure  at  all.  The 
first  section  dealt  with  Senatorial  districts,  and  merely 
assigned  districts  to  the  several  counties,  while  the  sec- 
ond section,  dealing  with  Assembly  districts,  was  a  re- 
print of  the  old  apportionment  law  of  1901. 

But  on  the  evening  of  March  14,  the  Senate  Commit- 
tee on  Apportionment  and  Representation  met  to  face 
the  reapportionment  problem.  It  developed  immediately 
that  San  Francisco,  Alameda  and  Santa  Clara  88°  counties 

329  The  vote  by  which  the  Randall  re-apportionment  bill  (A.  B., 
887)  passed  the  Assembly  was  as  follows: 

For  the  bill:  Beckett,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Bishop,  Bliss,  Bohnett, 
Brown,  Butler,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Cogswell,  Cronin,  Par- 
well,  Flint,  Freeman,  Gaylord,  Griffiths,  Guill,  Hall,  Hamilton, 
Harlan,  Held.  Hinshaw,  Jasper,  Jones.  Judson,  Lamb,  Lynch,  Lyon 
of  Los  Angeles,  Maher,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Polsley,  Preisker,  Ran- 
dall, Rodgers  of  San  Francisco,  Rogers  of  Alameda,  Rutherford, 
Slater,  Stuckenbruck,  Sutherland,  Tibbits,  Walker,  Wyllie,  Young-, 
and  Mr.  Speaker — 47. 

Against  the  bill:  Coghlan,  Cunningham,  Denegri,  Feeley,  Gerdes, 
Hayes,  Joel,  Kennedy,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco,  March,  McDonald, 
Mullally,  Nolan,  Rimlinger,  Rosendale,  Sbragia,  Schmitt,  Smith, 
Telfer,  and  Williams — 20. 

380  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  so-called  Welch  plan — which  had 
been  worked  out  by  Senator  Walker  of  San  Jose,  by  the  way — 
hinged  on  the  situation  in  Santa  Clara  county.  That  county  has 
long  been  represented  in  the  Legislature  by  two  Senators  and  three 
Assemblymen.  The  1910  census  gives  Santa  Clara  a  population  of 
83,539.  This  entitles  her,  on  the  basis  of  population,  to  one  Sen- 
ator, with  24,101  of  population  toward  a  second;  and  to  two  As- 


292  Reapportionment 

had  combined  on  a  scheme  of  reapportionment  and  had 
the  votes  to  put  it  through  the  committee. 

In  a  riot  of  generosity,  the  combination  gave  Los 
Angeles  county — population  504,131 — eight  Senators  and 
sixteen  Assemblymen;  San  Francisco — population  416,- 
912 — eight  Senators  and  sixteen  Assemblymen ;  Alameda 
— population  246,131 — four  Senators  and  eight  Assem- 
blymen; and  Santa  Clara — population  83,539 — two  Sen- 
ators and  three  Assemblymen,  a  total  for  the  four  coun- 
ties of  twenty-two  Senators  and  forty-three  Assembly- 
men. 

The  other  fifty-four  counties  of  the  State  were  al- 
lowed eighteen  Senators  and  thirty-seven  Assemblymen. 

After  this  generous  division,  San  Francisco,  Los  An- 
geles, Alameda  and  Santa  Clara  representatives  con- 
siderately withdrew,  to  let  the  representatives  of  the  re- 
maining fifty-four  counties  of  the  State  "scrap  it  out" 
for  their  eighteen  Senators  and  thirty-seven  Assembly- 
men.881 

The    Senators    representing    the    fifty-four    counties 

semblymen,  with  24,101  of  population  toward  a  third.  Inasmuch 
as  this  extra  population  can  not,  under  Constitutional  provisions, 
be  added  to  another  county  for  purposes  of  reapportionment,  Santa 
Clara  presents  one  of  the  hardest  of  the  many  hard  problems  of 
equitable  reapportionment. 

Ordinarily,  Santa  Clara  would  have  been  allowed  one  Senator 
and  three  Assemblymen.  This  would  be  about  as  fair  a  reappor- 
tionment as  could  be  made,  but  even  so,  Santa  Clara  would  suffer. 
But  under  the  Welch  plan,  Santa  Clara  was  given  its  old  repre- 
sentation. This  gave  the  county  one  Senator  for  each  41,769  of 
population,  17,669  less  than  the  59,438  required  on  the  basis  of 
population  for  a  Senatorial  district,  and  three  Assemblymen,  an 
Assemblymen  for  each  27,846  of  population,  or  1,873  short  of  the 
29,719  required  for  a  full-sized  Assembly  district. 

881  Under  this  arrangement  the  country  districts  would  have 
been  large.  For  example,  Fresno  county  would  have  had  one 
Senator  for  75,651  of  population;  Sonoma  and  Marin,  combined  in 
one  Senatorial  District,  one  Senator  for  73,508  population.  A 
Senatorial  District  in  Los  Angeles  county  would  have  required 
64,016  inhabitants.  But  San  Francisco  would  have  been  allowed  a 
Senatorial  District  for  every  52,115  population.  Santa  Clara  county 


Reapportionment  293 

spent  much  time  in  efforts  to  come  to  an  understand- 
ing.332 No  understanding  was  reached.  And,  too,  dif- 
ferences developed  in  the  Alameda-San  Francisco-Santa 
Clara  combination,  which  took  in,  by  the  way,  several 
members  from  outside  counties. 

The  committee  had  adjourned  on  March  14  to  meet 
March  16.  But  the  committee  did  not  meet  on  the  16th, 
nor  did  it  meet  until  March  24,  when  the  Legislature 
was  on  the  eve  of  adjournment. 

In  the  meantime  rumors  had  multiplied  that  no  reap- 
portionment  bill  would  be  passed.  Such  an  accomplish- 
ment would  be  distinctly  to  the  advantage  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, and  to  the  disadvantage  of  Los  Angeles.  If  a  re- 
apportionment  bill  were  passed,  San  Francisco's  legis- 

would  have  fared  even  better,  getting  a  Senatorial  District  for  each 
41,769  inhabitants. 

The  vote  by  which  the  Welch  plan  was  put  through  the  com- 
mittee on  the  night  of  March  14  was  on  Finn's  motion  that  San 
Francisco  be  given  eight  Senators  and  sixteen  Assemblyman.  It 
was  as  follows: 

For  the  Welch  plan:  Birdsall,  Burnett,  Campbell,  Estudillo, 
Finn,  Sanford,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Walker  and  Welch — 10. 

Against  the  Welch  plan — Bell,  Boynton,  Cutten,  Hewitt,  Rose- 
berry  and  Thompson — 6. 

832  Some  of  the  divisions  suggested  thoroughly  exasperated 
some  of  the  members  from  the  interior.  A  fairly  good  example  of 
this  was  furnished  by  the  situation  in  the  thirty-second  Senatorial 
District  represented  by  Senator  E.  O.  Larkins. 

The  District  at  present  includes  the  counties  of  Kings,  Tulare 
and  Kern. 

During  the  last  decade  these  counties  have  waxed  prosperous. 
Their  population  has  increased  to  89,385.  This  is  29,947  of  popu- 
lation more  than  is  required  for  a  Senatorial  District  established 
on  the  population  basis,  and  37,385  more  than  the  proposed  San 
Francisco  Senatorial  Districts  of  52,000  population  would  contain. 

More  in  sorrow  than  in  anger  Senator  Larkins  was  preparing 
to  accept  this  extraordinary  reapportionment,  when,  to  meet  the 
demands  of  other  sections,  Kings  county  was  cut  out  of  his  dis- 
trict, and  hooked  up  to  Monterey  and  San  Luis  Obispo,  with  the 
distressing  probability  that  some  unknown  quantity  would  be 
hooked  up  to  Tulare  and  Kern. 

Far  from  attaining  increased  harmony  by  the  change,  the  new 
plan  started  further  wrangling.  The  entire  group  of  counties  of 
which  Kings  is  the  center,  became  involved.  Agreement  seemed 
out  of  the  question.  From  wrangling  the  country  members  fell  to 
sulking.  Gradually,  the  full  meaning  of  the  Welch  plan  of  reap- 
portionment was  forced  home  to  them. 


294  Reapportionment 

lative  representation  would  be  reduced  at  least  one 
Senator  and  two  Assemblymen,  with  some  probability 
that  the  reduction  would  be  even  greater. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  passage  of  the  bill  meant  sub- 
stantial increase  in  the  Los  Angeles  legislative  dele- 
gation. 

But  if  no  bill  were  passed,  the  legislative  representa- 
tion of  the  rival  communities  would,  for  another  two 
years,  unless  there  were  an  extra  session,  continue  what 
it  had  been,  namely,  nine  Senators  and  eighteen  Assem- 
blymen for  San  Francisco,  and  five  Senators  and  nine 
Assemblymen  for  Los  Angeles. 

When  the  committee  finally  got  together  on  the  24th, 
Alameda  was  found  to  have  deserted  San  Francisco  and 
Santa  Clara,  and  to  be  in  combination  with  Los  Angeles. 
The  Senators  from  the  interior  were  confused  and  with- 
out definite  plan.  The  Alameda-Los  Angeles  combina- 
tion 333  easily  controlled  the  committee.  The  test  of  its 
strength  came  when  Senator  Walker  moved  that  the 

333  Senator  Hewitt  of  Los  Angeles,  as  spokesman  of  the  new 
combination,  announced  its  policy  to  be  as  follows: 

"We  must,"  said  Hewitt,  "in  reapportioning  the  State,  follow 
the  provisions  of  the  State  Constitution.  The  Randall  bill,  which 
has  passed  the  Assembly  and  which  is  before  this  Committee,  is 
obnoxious  to  Los  Angeles,  for  it  gives  that  county  only  seven  Sena- 
tors when  it  is  entitled  to  eight. 

"The  bill  is  obnoxious  to  San  Francisco  because  it  gives  that 
city  only  six  Senators.  In  readjusting  these  differences  we  must 
follow  the  law. 

"This  can  be  done  easily  in  reapportioning1  the  large  centers  of 
population.  There  should  be  no  difficulty  in  fixing  the  reapportion- 
ment  of  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles. 

"Such  reapportionrnent  is  a  matter  of  State-wide  concern.  It  is 
not  a  matter  of  the  interest  of  this  city  or  that.  It  is  a  matter 
in  which  the  whole  State  is  concerned. 

"Prospective  growth  of  a  given  community  is  not  to  be  consid- 
ered. The  Constitution  makes  no  provision  for  prospective  growth. 

"The  situation  calls  for  exercise  of  a  just  rule  for  all.  That 
rule  will  follo_w  the  provisions  of  the  State  Constitution.  It  will 
not  draw  distinctions  between  the  cities  and  the  country  as  is  done 
in  the  Randall  bill;  nor  distinctions  between  sections  of  the  State, 
as  is  done  in  the  Welch  bill." 


Reapportionment  295 

Randall  bill  be  amended  by  substituting  in  it  the  provi- 
sions of  the  Welch  reapportionment  plan.  The  motion 
was  lost  by  a  vote  of  6  to  8,  the  Alameda  and  Los  An- 
geles members  voting  against  the  motion.334 

After  a  short  recess  to  give  the  several  factions  op- 
portunity to  confer,  Hewitt  moved  that  a  sub-committee 
of  five  be  appointed  to  prepare  a  scheme  of  reappor- 
tionment for  the  consideration  of  the  Committee. 

The  San  Francisco  members  of  the  Committee,  and 
some  of  their  supporters,  refused  to  vote  on  the  ground 
that  several  sub-Committees  appointed  at  the  meeting 
ten  days  before,  when  the  San  Francisco-Alameda  com- 
bination was  running  things,  had  not  been  discharged. 
Nine  members,  however,  voted  for  Hewitt's  motion.335 

Chairman  Thompson  appointed  Hewitt,  Strobridge, 
Roseberry,  Sanford  and  Welch  to  serve  on  the  sub- 
Committee. 

Welch  asked  to  be  excused  from  serving.  But  Chair- 
man Thompson  firmly  refused  to  excuse  him,  thus  clos- 
ing the  incident. 

So  far  as  the  writer  knows,  the  sub-Committee  never 
reported.  Three  days  later  the  Legislature  adjourned 
without  any  reapportionment  bill  having  been  passed.336 

334  The  vote  on  Walker's  motion  was  as  follows: 

For  Walker's  motion:    Burnett,  Campbell,  Finn,  Sanford,  Walker, 

and  Welch — 6. 

Against   Walker's    amendment — Bell,    Birdsall,    Boynton,    Cutten, 

Hewitt,   Stetson,    Strobridge,   and  Thompson — 8. 

ass  The  nine  members  who  voted  for  Hewitt's  motion  were: 
Bell.  Birdsall,  Boynton,  Hewitt,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson, 
Cutten  and  Roseberry. 

336  After  the  Legislature  had  adjourned,  Assemblyman  Randall 
Issued  a  statement  in  which  he  denounced  the  Welch  plan  of  re- 
apportionment.  In  concluding  his  statement  Mr.  Randall  said: 

"The  Welch-Walker  combination  in  the  Senate,  which  proposed 
to  hand  over  to  the  three  largest  cities  of  the  State  almost  one- 
half  of  the  legislative  body,  if  it  had  been  successful,  would  have 


296  Reapportionment 

While  the  reapportionment  fight  was  on,  the  remark 
was  frequently  made  that  it  was  fortunate  that  the  dif- 
ferences between  Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco  are  so 
great  that  those  two  cities  can  never  enter  a  legislative 
combination  with  Alameda,  otherwise  the  three  counties 
could  arbitrarily  control  the  policies  of  the  State. 

But  even  as  this  observation  was  most  popular,  a 
combination  between  the  legislative  representatives  of 
the  three  cities  was  made,  in  which  San  Diego  joined,  to 
bring  the  State's  waterfront  properties  under  control,  as 
near  as  can  be,  of  the  municipalities  upon  which  these 
properties  border. 

This  combination  included  in  the  1911  Legislature 
nineteen  Senators  and  thirty-five  Assemblymen.  On  the 
basis  of  population  the  four  counties  will  have  in  the 
1913  Legislature  twenty  Senators  and  forty  Assembly- 
men, or  one-half  the  legislative  representation  of  the 
State.  The  events  recorded  in  the  next  chapter  furnish 
some  indication  of  what  this  may  mean  to  the  remaining 
fifty-four  counties. 

committed  a  blacker  political  crime  than  Abraham  Ruef  or  the 
Southern  Pacific  Railroad  ever  dreamed  of  perpetrating. 

"It  would  not  merely  be  a  crime  of  10  years'  standing,  but  it 
would  exist  for  all  time  to  come,  for  the  next  reapportionment 
would  be  completely  in  the  hands  of  these  cities.  The  Southern 
Pacific  political  octop_us  must  be  concealing  several  good  laughs  in 
its  sleeve  when  it  views  the  efforts  to  create  city  domination  of 
the  California  Legislature.  The  city  is  the  home  of  the  railroad's 
political  allies,  booze,  vice,  slums  and  special  privilege. 

"The  quickest  and  surest  way  to  hand  back  to  the  Southern 
Pacific  political  bureau  the  legislative  control  of  this  State  is  to 
place  cities  in  the  saddle.  The  S.  P.  will  do  the  rest." 

In  -discussing  the  reapportionment  problem,  the  San  Francisco 
Chronicle,  in  its  issue  of  March  15,  1911,  said  of  the  San  Francisco 
legislative  delegation:  "So  far  as  this  city  (San  Francisco)  is  con- 
cerned it  is  of  no  great  consequence  what  representation  we  have  in 
the  Legislature,  for  the  people  whom  we  usually  send  there  are, 
for  the  most  part,  of  no  earthly  use  to  us  or  anybody  else.  We 
might  as  well  have  three — better  if  they  were  good  men — as  fifty. 
Those  we  do  send  are  mostly  those  whom  all  honest  men  in  the 
Legislature  feel  it  necessary  to  watch." 


CHAPTER  XXV. 
THE  TIDE  LANDS  CONTROVERSY.337 

San  Francisco,  Los  Angeles,  San  Diego  and  Alameda 
Delegations  United  to  Change  the  Policy  from  State 
Waterfront  Control  to  Municipal  Control. 

The  four-cornered  fight  at  the  1911  session  of  the 
Legislature  for  municipal  control  of  the  State's  water- 
front, which  involved  San  Francisco,  Alameda,  San 
Diego  and  Los  Angeles,  had  its  origin  in  the  years-long 

337  In  the  Act  of  Congress  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of 
California  into  the  Union,  one  of  the  express  provisions  under  which 
such  admission  was  granted  was  "that  all  the  navigable  waters 
within  the  said  State  shall  be  common  highways  and  forever  free, 
as  well  to  the  inhabitants  of  said  State  as  to  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  without  any  tax,  impost  or  duty  therefor." 
Article  XV  of  the  State  Constitution  (1879)  provides: 

"Section  1.  The  right  of  eminent  domain  is  hereby  declared 
to  exist  in  the  State  to  all  frontages  on  the  navigable  waters  of 
this  State. 

"Sec.  2.  No  individual,  partnership,  or  corporation, 
claiming  or  possessing  the  frontage  of  tidal  lands  of  a  harbor, 
bay,  inlet,  estuary,  or  other  navigable  water  in  this  State,  shall 
be  permitted  to  exclude  the  right  of  way  to  such  water  when- 
ever it  is  required  for  any  public  purpose,  nor  to  destroy  or 
obstruct  the  free  navigation  of  such  water;  and  the  Legislature 
shall  enact  such  laws  as  will  give  the  most  liberal  construction 
to  this  provision,  so  that  access  to  the  navigable  waters  of 
this  State  shall  be  always  attainable  for  the  people  thereof. 

"Sec.  3.  All  tide  lands  within  two  miles  of  any  incorpo- 
rated city  or  town  of  this  State,  and  fronting  on  the  waters 
of  any  harbor,  estuary,  bay,  or  inlet,  used  for  the  purposes  of 
navigation,  shall  be  withheld  from  grant  or  sale  to  private  per- 
sons, partnerships,  or  corporations." 

Judge   Bordwell  in   his   decision   in   the   San   Pedro  water  front 
case  says: 

"In  this  country,  the  courts  from  the  beginning  adopted  the 
doctrine  that  the  title  to  the  lands  under  the  flow  of  the  tides 
is  vested  in  the  State  as  the  sovereign  prerogative;  or,  as  it 
is  frequently  expressed,  such  title  is  possessed  by  the  State  by 
virtue  of  her  sovereignty.  This  tenure,  by  which  the  State  is 
said  to  hold  title  to  the  tide  lands,  has  been  characterized  by 
the  courts  of  this  country  as  'a  title  held  in  trust  for  all  the 


298          The  Tide  Lands  Controversy 

fight  maintained  by  the  city  of  Los  Angeles  to  prevent 
the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Company  from  monop- 
olizing harbor  facilities  in  Southern  California. 

More  than  twenty  years  ago,  Los  Angeles  petitioned 
Congress  to  build  a  breakwater  at  San  Pedro,  which 
would  make  the  port  one  of  the  safest  and  best  harbors 
on  the  Pacific  Coast.  Collis  P.  Huntington,  then  Presi- 
dent of  the  Southern  Pacific,  at  that  time  a  power  in 
finance  and  politics,  took  occasion  to  direct  that  Con- 
gress do  nothing  of  the  kind,  but  improve  the  harbor  at 
Santa  Monica,  some  miles  distant  from  San  Pedro,  where 
the  Southern  Pacific  had  large  holdings. 

This  brought  on  a  fight  between  Los  Angeles  and 
the  Southern  Pacific,  which  lasted  for  years.  Hunting- 
ton  spent  years  in  endeavoring  to  demonstrate  that 
Santa  Monica  was  the  only  feasible  harbor.  Los  An- 
geles, ably  backed  by  the  then  United  States  Senator, 
Stephen  M.  White,  produced  figures  and  facts  to  prove 
that  Huntington  was  wrong;  that  the  best  development 
of  Southern  California  depended  upon  the  improvement 
of  San  Pedro  Bay. 

And  Los  Angeles  won. 

After  overcoming  almost  unbelievable  obstacles  which, 
through  the  influence  of  the  Southern  Pacific,  were 
thrown  in  their  way,  the  Los  Angeles  people  have  the 

people.'  Some  writers  criticize  the  use  of  the  term  'in  trust"  as 
inapt  to  convey  an  exact  understanding  of  the  quality  of  the 
tenure.  But  the  courts  have  long  employed  the  term  to  express 
the  character  of  the  State's  title  and  it  may  be  considered  as 
firmly  established  and  proper  to  state  as  a  proposition  of  law, 
in  this  country,  that  tide  lands  are  held  by  the  State  in  trust 
for  all  of  her  citizens." 

It  may  be  that  when  California  politicians  take  a  view  of  State 
well-being  that  shall  be  broader  than  sectional,  the  law  governing 
the  State  tide  lands  will  be  enforced,  and  private  ownership  and 
control  under  any  guise  be  brought  to  an  end. 


The  Tide  Lands  Controversy          299 

satisfaction  of  seeing  the  San  Pedro  breakwater  nearing 
completion. 

But  San  Pedro  harbor,  even  after  the  defeat  of  the 
railroad  obstructionists,  was  still  a  physical  ten  or  a 
dozen  miles  distant  from  the  city  limits  of  Los  Angeles. 
Los  Angeles  accordingly  annexed  a  strip  of  territory 
which  took  that  city  to  the  city  limits  of  San  Pedro. 

The  State  law  prevented  the  annexation  of  the  city 
of  San  Pedro.  So  the  State  law  was  amended  to  per- 
mit the  people  of  San  Pedro  to  say  whether  they  wanted 
to  join  with  Los  Angeles.  They  concluded  that  they  did. 
Los  Angeles  was  willing  and  the  two  cities  became  one. 

Los  Angeles  was  at  last  down  to  tide-water.  Plans 
were  perfected  by  which  Los  Angeles  was  to  spend 
$10,000,000  in  making  San  Pedro  one  of  the  finest  har- 
bors in  the  country.  But  a  new  difficulty  presented  itself. 

While  Los  Angeles  had  been  fighting  at  Washington 
to  secure  San  Pedro  harbor,  the  Southern  Pacific  Com- 
pany and  certain  other  private  interests  had  secured  the 
strategic  points  of  the  San  Pedro  tide  lands. 

Los  Angeles  accordingly  contested  the  titles  of  these 
private  interests  in  the  courts.  The  Superior  Court  of 
Los  Angeles  county  declared  against  the  private  inter- 
ests. But  this  did  not  give  Los  Angeles  the  tide  lands 
which  were  required  for  that  city's  plans  for  harbor  de- 
velopment. 

The  court  held  that  the  San  Pedro  tide  lands  are  the 
property  of  the  State  of  California.338 

This,  however,  was  all  for  which  Los  Angeles  was 

338  See  opinion  of  Superior  Judge  "Walter  Bordwell,  in  The 
People  of  the  State  of  California  vs.  Southern  Pacific  Railroad 
Company  et  al.  (No.  64,535),  filed  January  3,  1911. 


300          The  Tide  Lands  Controversy 

contending.  That  city's  object  was,  in  the  name  of  the 
State,  to  oust  the  private  interests  wrongfully  holding  the 
San  Pedro  waterfront,  and  then  secure  from  the  State 
grants  which  would  warrant  Los  Angeles  going  on  with 
the  contemplated  harbor  improvements. 

Such  was  the  situation  when  the  1911  Legislature 
convened.  In  pursuance  of  Los  Angeles'  plans,  Sen- 
ator Hewitt,  on  January  19,  introduced  Senate  Bill  445, 
which  granted  the  coveted  tide  lands  to  Los  Angeles  and 
its  successors  in  trust  for  the  uses  and  purposes  specified. 

And  at  once  the  measure  met  the  powerful  opposi- 
tion of  San  Francisco.  The  reason  for  the  opposition 
was  very  frankly  stated  to  be  based  on  the  fear  that  Los 
Angeles  would  secure  advantage  over  San  Francisco 
which  San  Francisco  could  not  meet.339  This  opposition 
took  form,  not  only  against  the  San  Pedro  tide  land  bills, 

339  This  fear  found  official  expression  in  a  communication  sent 
Senator  Wolfe  by  the  Merchants'  Association  of  San  Francisco. 
The  communication  read  as  follows: 

"San  Francisco,  February  28,  1911. 
"Hon.  E.  I.  Wolfe,  Senate  Chamber,  Sacramento,  California: 

"With  reference  to  the  bills  pending  for  cession  of  tide  lands 
to  the  cities  of  Los  Angeles,  San  Diego  and  Oakland,  the 
Merchants'  Association  of  San  Francisco  desires  to  co-operate 
with  these  cities  in  any  reasonable  effort  for  the  improvement 
and  maintenance  of  their  harbors.  The  association,  however, 
believes  that  the  cession  of  tide  lands  to  these  cities  with  an 
opportunity  for  them  to  assume  control  of  their  respective  har- 
bors and  regulate  charges  on  shipping  and  with  the  power  that 
they  would  have  of  raising  funds  for  improving  and  maintain- 
ing the  harbors  by  taxing  the  property  of  their  citizens  instead 
of  by  raising  funds  from  charges  on  shipping  would  give  them 
an  opportunity  of  entering  into  unfair  competition  with  the 
harbor  of  San  Francisco,  which  is  now  under  State  control,  and 
can  be  maintained  only  by  charges  upon  shipping.  If  such  un- 
fair competition  were  to  be  permitted  or  encouraged  by  the 
State  it  might  seriously  affect  the  revenues  that  could  be  raised 
in  San  Francisco  harbor  from  the  charges  upon  shipping  and 
would  affect  the  bonds  which  have  been  issued  and  which  have 
been  authorized  and  reflect  on  the  credit  of  the  State.  We  there- 
fore urge  that  in  any  cession  of  tide  lands  to  any  of  these 
three  cities  some  scheme  be  provided  for  State  control  and  the 
State  be  given  authority  to  fix  at  least  a  minimum  charge  on 
shipping.  For  similar  reasons  we  are  opposed  to  any  law  being 
passed  with  reference  to  pilot  charges  except  a  uniform  law 
affecting  all  harbors  alike.  We  would  request  you  to  present 


The  Tide  Lands  Controversy          301 

but  against  other  measures  which  aimed  to  improve  har- 
bor conditions  at  San  Pedro. 

The  clash  between  Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco 
over  this  issue,  found  its  first  open  expression  on  Feb- 
ruary 15,  when  the  so-called  San  Pedro  Pilot  bill  (Sen- 
ate Bill  874)  came  before  the  Senate  for  final  passage.340 
This  measure  repealed  the  law  which  fixed  the  pilots' 
fees  for  the  ports  of  Wilmington  and  San  Pedro.  It  was 
claimed  that  these  fees  were  extortionate,  that  they  placed 
an  unjust  burden  upon  the  shipping  of  the  two  ports  and 
imposed  an  unwarranted  handicap  upon  the  development 
of  the  harbors.  On  this  ground,  the  Los  Angeles  dele- 
gation urged  that  Senate  Bill  874,  repealing  the  law 
under  which  this  extortion  was  practiced,  be  passed. 

When  the  measure  came  up  for  final  passage,  how- 
ever, San  Francisco  was  quick  to  the  fore  with  objection. 
Welch  of  that  city  moved  the  measure  be  re-referred  to 
the  Judiciary  Committee.  This  action  was  taken.341 

Senate   Bill  874   remained   in  the   Senate  Judiciary 

these  views  to  the  appropriate  committees,  and  would  request 
that  you  secure  the  publication  of  this  communication  in  the 
Senate  Journal. 

"THE   MERCHANTS'  ASSOCIATION   of  San  Francisco. 

"M.  H.  ROBBINS,  JR.,  President." 

This  attitude  was,  however,  condemned  by  other  San  Francisco 
interests.  "The  suggestion,"  said  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle,  in 
discussing  the  matter,  "that  the  State  should  Intervene  to  prevent 
any  other  port  from  competing  with  us  is  humiliating.  If  San 
Francisco  with  all  Its  natural  advantages  cries  out  for  help  against 
the  competition  of  an  artificial  port  most  self-respecting  persons 
would  wish  to  move  out  of  San  Francisco." 

340  Senate  bill  445,   the  Los  Angeles   tide  lands   bill,   had,   how- 
ever,   already    (Feb.    3)    on    its    third    reading    been    re-referred    to 
the  Judiciary  Committee. 

341  The  Los  Angeles  press  was  bitter  in  it  denunciation  of  the 
course  taken  by  San  Francisco  members.     The  Los  Angeles  Herald, 
for  example,   in  its  issue  of  Feb.   21.   in  an  editorial  article,   "The 
Hand  of  the  S.  P.,"  said: 

"Back  of  the  move  being  made  at  Sacramento  by  Senator 
Wolfe  and  his  associates  from  San  Francisco  to  throttle  the 
plans  of  Los  Angeles  for  a  great  municipally-owned  harbor 


302          The  Tide  Lands  Controversy 

Committee  until  March  18,  when,  with  tide  land  bills 
affecting  the  waterfronts  of  four  centers  of  population, 
it  was,  under  extraordinary  circumstances,  reported  out 
with  the  recommendation  that  it  be  passed. 

The  re-referring  of  this  bill  to  the  Judiciary  Commit- 
tee, however,  took  the  whole  tide  land  controversy  before 
that  body.  There  it  developed  that  San  Diego  and  Oak- 
land also  had  measures  before  the  Legislature  which 
granted  those  communities  important  State  tide  land 
properties,  while  San  Francisco  had  proposed  a  bill 

looms  the  sinister  hand  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad.  And 
why  not?  It  is  true  that  the  Southern  Pacific  has  spent  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  for  terminal  properties  in  San  Francisco  to 
dollars  that  it  has  spent  in  Los  Angeles.  Is  it  not  to  the  in- 
terest of  the  S.  P.  to  crush  this  plan  fostered  by  the  South 
that  recently  has  thrown  off  the  Herrin  yoke?  It  is  but  natural 
that  the  big  railroad  corporation,  always  noted  for  discrimi- 
nating against  Los  Angeles  in  favor  of  San  Francisco,  should 
wish  to  build  up  commerce  where  it  has  expended  the  most 
money,  and  take  this  commerce  away  from  a  city  where  the 
road's  policy  has  been  niggardly  and  where,  in  addition,  the 
yoke  of  the  road's  political  boss  has  been  broken. 

"Wherefore  it  behooves  the  people  of  Southern  California  to 
rise  and  thwart  the  plans  of  San  Francisco  legislators,  repre- 
senting as  they  do  the  old  order  of  things — the  Herrin  idea — 
and  by  a  mighty  demonstration  make  the  harbor  of  Los 
Angeles  a  municipal  port.  Los  Angeles  is  a  well-governed  city. 
Under  municipal  control  her  harbor  will  be  one  of  the  greatest 
in  the  world,  and  this  is  the  very  thing  the  reactionaries  at 
Sacramento  are  trying  to  prevent." 

Nor  were  the  people  of  Los  Angeles  at  all  backward  in  charging 
that  the  Southern  Pacific  Company  was  back  of  the  opposition  to 
the  bills. 

"The  real  opponents  of  Los  Angeles  Harbor,"  insisted  George 
Alexander,  Mayor  of  that  city,  before  the  Senate  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee on  the  evening  of  Feb.  24,  "is  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad 
Company.  All  that  we  ask  of  this  Legislature  is  that  you  give  us 
permission  to  develop  our  harbor  in  a  way  that  will  bring  the 
greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number." 

"I  do  not  believe  that  this  opposition  comes  from  San  Fran- 
cisco," said  Joseph  Call,  one  of  the  best  known  authorities  on 
railroad  matters  in  the  country.  "I  do  not  believe  that  San  Fran- 
cisco wants  to  bottle  up  our  harbor.  The  real  opposition  comes 
from  the  railroads. 

"It  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge,"  Call  continued,  "that 
the  Standard  Oil  controls  the  three  great  railroads  to  the  Coast, 
the  Southern  Pacific,  Western  Pacific  and  Santa  Fe.  By  con- 
certed action  they  have  steadily  advanced  rates.  The  only  relief 
California  can  get  will  come  through  the  development  of  the  State's 
water  fronts.  That  development  the  railroads  will  prevent  if  they 
can." 


The  Tide  Lands  Controversy          303 

which  granted  to  that  city  not  only  the  tide  lands,  but 
all  the  extensive  improvements  which  the  State  has  made 
on  the  San  Francisco  waterfront,  and  which  have  cost 
upwards  of  $30,000,000.842 

The  Judiciary  Committee  authorized  the  appointing 
of  a  subcommittee  to  deal  with  all  the  tide  land  meas- 
ures. This  subcommittee  consisted  of  Wolfe  of  San 
Francisco,  Stetson  and  Tyrrell  of  Oakland,  Hewitt  of 
Los  Angeles,  Wright  of  San  Diego,  and  Caminetti  of 
Amador,S42a  the  last  named  being  the  only  member  of 
the  sub-committee  whose  district  did  not  have  a  tide  lands 
measure  before  the  Legislature.348 

At  the  time  the  subcommittee  was  appointed,  the  San 
Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  delegations  were  as  far  apart 
in  the  tide  lands  controversy  as  the  poles.  Alameda  and 
San  Diego  were  quietly  awaiting  the  psychological  mo- 
ment to  make  a  decisive  move.  And  then  came  word  to 
the  San  Francisco  delegation,  from  the  San  Francisco 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  to  give  Los  Angeles  what  that 
city  wanted. 

As  this  order  from  the  San  Francisco  Chamber  of 

342  Senate   bill   1200.     The  measure   reads   as  follows: 

"The  interest  of  the  State  of  California  in  and  to  all  those  cer- 
tain lands,  wharves,  buildings,  docks,  boats,  dredgers,  railroads,  and 
any  and  all  property,  real,  personal  and  mixed,  together  with  all 
the  Improvements,  rights,  privileges,  easements,  appurtenances 
connected  therewith  or  in  any  wise  appertaining  thereto  now  In  the 
possession  of  the  State  of  California,  and  under  the  jurisdiction 
and  control  of  the  State  Board  of  Harbor  Commissioners  and 
situated  In  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  Is  hereby  granted 
to  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco." 

342a  Thompson  of  Los  Angeles  later  on  became  a  member  of 
this  sub-committee. 

343  Senator   Caminetti    proposed    that   the   State    Institute    legal 
proceedings — as  the  city  of  Los  Angeles  in  the  name  of  the  State 
had  done  at  San  Pedro — to  recover  tide  lands  at  San  Diego,   Oak- 
land, Eureka  and  such  other  points  as  might  be  determined,  where 
the    properties    had    passed    into    the    hands    of    private    interests. 
Eventually,    this  will   unquestionably   be   done. 


304          The  Tide  Lands  Controversy 

Commerce  was  the  reverse  of  what  the  San  Francisco 
Merchants'  Association  was  insisting  upon,  the  San 
Francisco  legislative  delegations  found  the  situation  con- 
fusing. 

A  meeting  of  San  Francisco  business  men  and  legis- 
lators was  accordingly  held  at  the  rooms  of  the  San 
Francisco  Chamber  of  Commerce.  At  that  meeting,  it 
developed  that  representatives  of  the  San  Francisco 
Chamber  of  Commerce  had  two  years  before  entered  into 
a  "gentlemen's  agreement"  with  the  commercial  bodies 
of  Los  Angeles  to  support  Los  Angeles  in  its  endeavor 
to  get  control  of  San  Pedro  Harbor,  on  condition  that 
the  Los  Angeles  commercial  bodies  assist  in  the  defeat 
of  the  India  Basin  bonds,  then  pending  before  the  State. 

These  India  Basin  bonds,  it  may  be  said,  were  for  one 
of  the  most  important  harbor  improvements  at  San  Fran- 
cisco ever  undertaken.  Outside  of  a  few  special  interests 
San  Francisco  was  and  is  practically  a  unit  for  the  im- 
provement. Although  these  special  interests  made  an 
expensive  campaign  to  defeat  the  India  Basin  bonds,  the 
vote  against  the  bonds  in  San  Francisco  was  only  10,154, 
while  the  vote  for  them  was  31,448. 

The  remainder  of  the  State  gave  a  substantial  vote 
for  the  bonds,  but  at  Los  Angeles  the  vote  was  30,839 
against  them,  and  only  5,552  for  them.34*  This  adverse 
Los  Angeles  vote  defeated  the  bonds.  The  Los  Angeles 

344  So  important  is  this  India  Basin  improvement  for  the  best 
development  of  San  Francisco,  that  in  1910  the  India  Basin  bonds 
were  for  a  second  time  submitted  to  the  people.  At  this  second 
submission,  the  San  Francisco  Chamber  of  Commerce  joined  with 
the  Merchants'  Exchange  and  Merchants'  Association  of  that  city 
in  urging  their  ratification.  Although  the  special  interests  oppos- 
ing the  improvement  expended,  it  is  estimated,  upward  of  $100,000 
to  defeat  the  bonds,  while  the  combined  commercial  bodies  spent 
less  than  $2000,  the  bonds  were  ratified,  and  the  funds  for  the  im- 
provement made  available. 


The  Tide  Lands  Controversy          305 

commercial  bodies  certainly  lived  up  to  their  part  of  the 
agreement. 

When  the  time  came  to  turn  the  San  Pedro  water- 
front over  to  Los  Angeles,  the  Los  Angeles  commercial 
bodies  called  upon  the  San  Francisco  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce to  fulfill  its  part  of  the  agreement. 

At  the  San  Francisco  meeting,  the  Los  Angeles  peo- 
ple put  it,  in  effect,  in  this  way: 

"A  pledge  was  given  us  two  years  ago  by  your  com- 
mercial organizations  that  if  we  aided  in  defeating  the 
bonds  of  the  India  Basin  Act,  you  would  aid  us  in  our 
endeavor  to  get  control  of  our  harbor  when  the  time  was 
ripe." 

The  San  Francisco  Merchants'  Association  denied 
that  it  was  party  to  any  such  understanding.  It  de- 
veloped that  the  pact  had  been  made  by  members  of  the 
San  Francisco  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  the  Shipown- 
ers' Association.  Nevertheless,  it  was  contended  that  the 
members  of  the  San  Francisco  delegation  in  the  Legis- 
lature should  abide  by  this  agreement,  made  before  they 
were  elected,  of  which  they  had  no  knowledge,  and 
which  was  predicated  on  a  pledge  given  to  members  of 
the  San  Francisco  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  Ship- 
owners' Association  by  the  commercial  bodies  of  a  rival 
city,  to  do  San  Francisco  a  serious  injury. 

But  the  contention  that  the  agreement  should  be  kept 
prevailed.  Word  was  sent  members  of  the  San  Francisco 
legislative  delegation  to  discontinue  opposition  to  the 
Los  Angeles  tide  lands  measure. 

Other  motives  may  of  course  have  governed  them, 
but  about  this  time,  the  opposition  of  the  San  Francisco 


306          The  Tide  Lands  Controversy 

Senators,  to  the  Los  Angeles  tide  lands  bills,  with  the 
exception  of  the  opposition  of  Senator  Welch,  ceased. 
Out  of  the  San  Francisco  conference  grew  another 
"gentlemen's  agreement,"  namely,  that  when  San  Fran- 
cisco is  ready  to  take  over  the  State's  waterfront  prop- 
erty in  that  city,  Los  Angeles  would  assist  her  in  the  en- 
terprise.846 As  a  step  toward  this  end,  it  was  decided 
that  a  bill  should  be  introduced,  under  the  terms  of  which 
San  Francisco  would  be  authorized  to  issue  bonds  to  re- 
deem State  bonds  that  may  have  been  issued  for  the 
benefit  of  the  San  Francisco  waterfront.  Such  a  bill 


345  Not  the  least  astonishing  feature  of  this  arrangement  be- 
tween the  commercial  bodies  of  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  is 
the  frankness  with  which  it  was  discussed.  The  San  Francisco 
Chronicle,  for  example,  in  its  issue  of  February  27,  1911,  said: 

"The  agreement  reached  between  the  Chambers  of  Commerce 
of  Los  Angeles  and  this  city  marks  the  beginning  of  the  end  of 
the  control  of  the  harbor  fronts  of  our  ports  by  the  State.  Los 
Angeles  is  to  be  given  control  of  the  San  Pedro  harbor  without 
opposition,  and  San  Francisco  is  assured  of  tHe  support  of  Los 
Angeles  whenever  we  are  ready  to  take  the  same  step  here.  And 
agreements  of  that  kind  are  always  kept. 

"In  due  time  San  Diego  and  Eureka  will  take  the  same  steps, 
so  far  as  their  fronts  have  not  passed  into  the  hands  of  corpora- 
tions. Corporations  or  individuals  already  control  the  smaller  ports 
and  landing  places  subject  to  public  regulation  of  charges,  and  if 
they  do  not  abuse  their  powers  they  are  likely  to  be  undisturbed." 

On  another  occasion  the  Chronicle  said  in  an  editorial  article: 

"The  proper  representatives  of  this  city  have  made  an  agree- 
ment with  representatives  of  other  seaport  cities  to  the  effect  that 
we  will  help  them  get  what  they  want  now  and  the  other  cities 
shall  help  us  to  get  the  same  things  when  we  want  it. 

"We  should  keep  our  agreement  and  trust  to  the  other  cities 
to  keep  theirs." 

The  fac.t  must  not  be  lost  sight  of  that  in  the  next  Legislature 
on  a  basis  of  population,  the  "other  cities"  referred  to  will,  with 
San  Francisco,  have  in  the  Legislature  twenty  of  the  forty  Sen- 
ators, and  forty  of  the  eighty  Assemblymen.  If  to  these  be  added 
the  representatives  from  Humboldt  county,  where  at  Eureka  the 
same  tide  lands  problem  must  be  met,  the  five  counties  will  have 
a  clear  majority  of  the  Legislature,  twenty-one  members  in  the 
Senate,  and  forty-two  in  the  Assembly,  while  the  other  fifty-three 
counties  of  the  State  will  be  represented  by  only  nineteen  Senators 
and  thirty-eight  Assemblymen. 


The  Tide  Lands  Controversy          307 

was,  a  few  days  later,  introduced  in  the  Senate  by 
Wolfe.346  The  measure  became  a  law. 

The  introduction  of  this  bill,  with  Senate  Bill  1246, 
which  granted  to  the  city  of  Long  Beach  the  State's 
tide  and  submerged  lands  within  the  boundaries  of  that 
city,  completed  the  setting  of  the  scene  for  the  passage 
of  all  the  tide  lands  bills,  by  the  united  delegations  of 
the  four  centers  of  population  interested,  San  Francisco, 
Los  Angeles,  San  Diego  and  Oakland. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  before  the  commercial 
bodies  of  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  lent  their  good 
offices  to  the  solving  of  the  tide  lands  problem,  the  vari- 
ous tide  lands  measures  had  been  entrusted  to  a  sub- 
committee of  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee.  The  sub- 
committee had  been  appointed  about  the  middle  of  Feb- 
ruary, but  it  was  not  until  the  middle  of  March  that  ac- 
tion was  taken. 


346  How  the  Interior  views  this  proposed  turning  of  the  San 
Francisco  water  front  over  to  that  city  is  well  expressed  in  an 
editorial  article  which  appeared  in  the  Fresno  Republican  of  Febru- 
ary 24.  The  article  was  headed  "Pygmy  Politics,"  and  reads: 

"According  to  the  Chronicle  the  reason  San  Francisco  can  not 
get  control  of  its  water  front,  while  Los  Angeles  probably  can,  is 
that  San  Francisco  sends  'pygmies  to  Sacramento,  to  deal  with 
the  able  and  united  phalanx  which  the  South  sends  up.'  This  is, 
of  course,  not  wholly  true,  as  to  all  the  representatives  from  San 
Francisco,  some  of  whom  are  first  class  men,  but  it  has  always 
been  notoriously  true  of  the  majority  of  the  delegations  sent  up 
from  San  Francisco,  and  it  is  undoubtedly  as  the  Chronicle  sug- 
gests, one  of  the  reasons  why  Los  Angeles  has  been  able  to  get 
some  things  which  San  Francisco  could  not. 

"But  is  it  not  also  one  of  the  reasons  why  San  Francisco  ought 
not  to  control  its  water  front,  even  if  other  cities  do?  For  the 
Legislature  is  not  the  only  place  where  San  Francisco  selects 
'pygmies'  to  represent  it.  There  are  pygmies  on  the  Board  of 
Supervisors,  there  is  a  particularly  pin-headed  one  in  the  Mayor's 
chair,  and  there  would  be  three  petty  district  bosses  doing  politics 
with  the  water  front  if  San  Francisco  had  the  choosing  of  them. 
The  commerce  of  the  port  of  San  Francisco  is  the  commerce  not  of 
San  Francisco  merely,  but  of  California,  and  the  world.  San  Fran- 
cisco may  have  the  right  to  misgovern  itself  in  local  affairs.  It 
has  not  the  right  to  impose  that  misgovernment  on  general  af- 
fairs. If  San  Francisco  wants  its  water  front,  let  it  first  demon- 
strate its  capacity  to  run  it,  by  running  something  else  honestly." 


308          The  Tide  Lands  Controversy 

When  the  Senate  adjourned  for  the  noon  hour  on 
March  17,  the  subcommittee  was  called  together.  It  was 
proposed  to  decide  upon  a  course  of  action.  Caminetti, 
however,  entered  such  vigorous  protest  that  he  secured 
postponement  until  7  o'clock  that  evening. 

At  the  7  o'clock  meeting  Caminetti  moved  that  pro- 
vision be  made  to  recover  tide  lands  that  have  been 
wrongfully  and  illegally  passed  into  private  hands.  The 
motion  failed  to  carry. 

The  subcommittee,  Caminetti  dissenting,  thereupon 
proceeded  to  accept  forms  of  bills  for  the  transfer  of  tide 
lands  to  the  several  municipalities  interested. 

As  the  subcommittee  was  acting  for  the  Judiciary 
Committee,  it  was  supposed,  of  course,  that  the  sub- 
committee would  give  the  Judiciary  Committee  oppor- 
tunity to  pass  upon  the  proposed  measures. 

Between  the  Friday  meeting  of  the  subcommittee 
and  Saturday  afternoon  the  Judiciary  Committee  held  no 
meeting. 

Saturday  afternoon  Senator  Stetson,  Chairman  of  the 
Senate  Judiciary  Committee,  asked  permission  to  intro- 
duce a  Committee  report  out  of  order. 

This  permission  was  accorded  as  a  matter  of  course. 

The  report  turned  out  to  be  the  report  on  the  tide 
land  bills,  as  prepared  by  the  subcommittee. 

Senator  Shanahan  raised  the  point  of  order  that  the 
bills  named  in  the  report  had  been  referred  to  a  sub- 
committee by  the  Judiciary  Committee,  that  the  sub- 
committee had  filed  no  report,  and  had  not  been  dis- 
charged by  the  Judiciary  Committee,  that,  therefore,  the 
bills  were  still  in  the  custody  of  the  subcommittee. 


The  Tide  Lands  Controversy          309 

Senator  Wolfe  was  presiding  at  the  time  and  ruled 
the  point  not  well  taken,  on  the  ground  that  permission 
had  been  granted  the  Judiciary  Committee  to  file  its  re- 
port out  of  order. 

The  fact  developed  during  the  discussion  which  fol- 
lowed that  members  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  without 
meeting  of  the  Committee,  had  consented  to  the  report's 
being  presented  to  the  Senate.  One  member  of  the  Com- 
mittee, however,  Roseberry,  had  refused  to  agree  to  this 
course. 

Roseberry  took  occasion  to  enter  his  protest  against 
the  irregularity  of  the  proceedings.  Boynton  joined 
Roseberry  in  declaring  the  course  to  be  irregular. 

Boynton,  however,  suggested  that  the  report  of  the 
Committee  be  permitted  to  stand,  on  condition  that  Cam- 
inetti  be  authorized  to  file  a  minority  report.  This  was 
finally  decided  upon. 

But  immediately  after  this  permission  had  been  given 
Caminetti,  the  Tide  Lands  bills  were  taken  up  one  by 
one,  and  amended  according  to  the  recommendations  of 
the  subcommittee,  the  way  thus  being  prepared  for  their 
final  passage. 

The  Senate  passed  the  Oakland  and  the  Los  An- 
geles Tide  Lands  bills  on  March  20,  and  the  San  Diego 
bill  on  March  23. 

Of  the  nineteen  Senators  from  San  Francisco,  Oak- 
land (Alameda  county),  Los  Angeles  and  San  Diego, 
seventeen  voted  for  the  Oakland  bill,  and  fourteen  for 
the  Los  Angeles  bill.  Senator  Welch  of  San  Francisco 
was  the  only  one  of  the  nineteen  to  vote  against  the 
measures.  Hare  did  not  vote  at  all  on  either  bill,  while 


3io          The  Tide  Lands  Controversy 

Beban  and  Finn  of  San  Francisco,  and  Hans  of  Oak- 
land, did  not  vote  for  the  Los  Angeles  measure.347 

Senator  Cutten,  in  speaking  against  the  passage  of 
these  bills  voiced  the  sentiment  of  the  members  from  the 
interior,  who  opposed  the  transfer  of  the  State's  property. 
He  stated  that  if  there  be  one  city  in  the  State  entitled  to 
its  tide  lands  that  city  is  Los  Angeles. 

"But,"  said  Cutten,  "I  do  not  believe  in  the  policy 
which  is  being  pursued  here.  If  the  cities  hold  that  they 

847  The  Senate  votes  on  the  Tide  Lands  bills  were  as  follows, 
the  names  of  the  Senators  from  Oakland  (Altimeda  County)  San 
Francisco,  Los  Angeles  and  San  Diego  being  printed  in  black: 

For  the  Los  Angeles  bill  (Senate  Bill  445):  Avey,  Bell,  Bills, 
Black,  Bryant,  Burnett.  Cartwright,  Cassidy,  Estudillo,  Gates, 
Hewitt,  Hurd,  Juilliard,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Rush,  Sanford,  Stetson, 
Strobrldge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  Wolfe,  and  Wright — 23. 

Against  the  Los  Angeles  bill:  Senators  Blrdsall,  Boynton, 
Caminetti,  Cutten,  Holohan,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Shanahan,  Walker, 
and  Welch— 10. 

For  the  Oakland  bill  (Senate  Bill  399):  Avey,  Beban,  Bell, 
Bills,  Black,  Bryant,  Burnett,  Cartwright,  Cassidy,  Estudillo,  Finn, 
Gates,  Hans,  Hewitt,  Hurd,  Juilliard,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Rush,  San- 
ford,  Stetson,  Strobrldge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  Wolfe,  and  Wright 
—26. 

Against  the  Oakland  bill:  Birdsall,  Caminetti,  Cutten,  Holo- 
han, Larkins,  Lewis,  Roseberry,  Shanahan,  Walker,  and  Welch 
—10. 

A  companion  bill  to  the  Oakland  measure  (Senate  Bill  451), 
passed  the  Senate  on  March  22  by  the  following  vote: 

For  Senate  Bill  451:  Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Bills,  Black,  Cart- 
wright, Cassidy,  Curtin,  Finn,  Hans,  Hare,  Hewitt,  Hurd,  Juil- 
liard, Martinelli,  Rush,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell, 
Welch,  and  Wolfe— 22. 

Against  Senate  Bill  451:  Blrdsall,  Boynton,  Caminetti,  Cutten, 
Hohohan,  and  Lewis — 6. 

The  Senate  vote  on  the  San  Diego  Tide  Lands  bill  (Assembly 
Bill  998),  was: 

For  the  San  Diego  bill:  Beban,  Bills,  Black,  Bryant,  Cart- 
wright, Cassidy,  Curtin,  Estudillo,  Finn,  Gates,  Hans,  Hurd,  Juil- 
liard, Martinelli,  Regan,  Rush,  Stetson,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  Walker, 
Wolfe,  and  Wright— 22. 

Against  the  San  Diego  bill:  Birdsall,  Boynton,  Caminetti,  Cut- 
ten,  Holohan,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Roseberry,  and  Shanahan — 9. 

The  Long  Beach  Tide  Lands  bill  (Senate  Bill  1246),  was  In 
reality  a  companion  bill  to  the  Los  Angeles  Tide  Lands  bill.  Th« 
vote  by  which  it  was  passed  was: 

For  the  Long  Beach  bill:  Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Bills,  Black, 
Bryant,  Cassidy,  Estudillo,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Hurd,  Juilliard,  Mar- 
tinelli, Regan,  Rush,  Sanford,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson, 
Wolfe,  and  Wright— 21. 

Against  the  Long  Beach  bill:  Birdsall,  Boynton,  Hare,  Larkins, 
Lewis,  Roseberry,  Shanahan,  and  Walker — 8. 


The  Tide  Lands  Controversy          311 

should  only  lease  these  lands  under  their  proposed 
Trusteeship,  why  cannot  the  State  lease  the  lands  to  the 
cities?" 

Shanahan  stated  that  his  position  was  that  of  Senator 
Cutten.  He  insisted  that  he  had  the  greatest  admiration 
for  Los  Angeles'  patriotism  and  pluck  in  fighting  the 
Southern  Pacific  for  the  recovery  of  these  lands,  but 
he  could  not  subscribe  to  the  policy  under  which  the  pro- 
posed transfer  was  to  be  made. 

"But  it  is  idle  to  talk  on  the  question,"  concluded 
Shanahan,  impatiently.  "Oakland,  Los  Angeles,  San 
Francisco  and  San  Diego  have  agreed  among  themselves 
to  pass  these  bills  and  will  pass  them.  They  have  the 
votes  to  carry  them.  But  I  owe  it  to  my  State  to  pro- 
test." 

Senator  Larkins  as  vigorously  warned  the  Senate  of 
the  dangers  of  the  new  policy  which  they  were  about  to 
adopt. 

The  members  from  the  four  centers  of  population 
directly  interested,  waited  indulgently  until  the  protes- 
tants  were  done.  Then  the  bills  were  passed  with  all  the 
deadly  certainty  and  dispatch  of  the  slide  of  the  knife  of 
a  guillotine. 

The  San  Diego  bill  had  already  passed  the  Assem- 
bly, but  the  other  measures  were  all  Senate  bills,  and  had 
yet  to  be  acted  upon  in  the  Lower  House.  Before  they 
could  be  acted  upon  by  the  Assembly  two  matters  came 
up  which  threatened  the  carrying  out  of  the  "gentlemen's 
agreement,"  made  outside  the  Legislature,  by  which  San 
Francisco  was  to  support  the  Los  Angeles  bill,  and  at 
some  future  day,  when  San  Francisco  is  ready,  Los  An- 


312          The  Tide  Lands  Controversy 

geles  is  to  join  with  San  Francisco  to  grant  the  State's 
property  on  the  San  Francisco  waterfront  to  that  city. 
The  new  conditions  which  threatened  the  "gentlemen's 
agreement"  were: 

( 1 )  Because  of  labor  measures — Members  of  the  Los 
Angeles  delegation  opposed  the  Anti-Injunction  bill,348 
and  were  generally  against  labor  measures.    Toward  the 
end  of  the  session,  certain  San  Francisco  Assemblymen, 
because  of  Los  Angeles'  attitude  on  labor,  thought  to 
"get  even"  with  Los  Angeles  by  defeating  the  Los  An- 
geles Tide  Lands  bill.     . 

(2)  Reapportionment — The  greater  part  of  the  San 
Francisco  delegation  saw  in  the  anxiety  of  the  Los  An- 
geles members  over  their  Tide  Lands  bill,  opportunity  to 
force   the   Los   Angeles   delegation   into   a   compromise 
on  reapportionment  which  would    give    San    Francisco 
greater  legislative    representation    than    her    population 
warrants. 

In  addition  to  the  opponents  who  were  moved  by 
these  considerations,  were  those  members  of  the  Assem- 
bly who  realized  that  the  new  departure  in  the  disposition 
of  the  State's  tide  lands  involved  the  transfer  of  State 
properties  worth  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  to  in- 
dividual municipalities,  and  resisted  the  new  policy  as 
unwise,  and  against  the  best  interests  of  the  State. 

When  the  Los  Angeles  bill  came  before  the  Assembly 
for  final  passage,  Preisker  moved  to  amend,  by  striking 

348  See   Chapter  XXIII. 


The  Tide  Lands  Controversy          313 

out  the  word  "forever,"  which  made  the  grant  perpetual, 
and  further  safeguarding  the  State's  interests.349 

The  amendment  was  hotly  contested,  and  finally  de- 
feated by  a  narrow  margin  of  31  to  37.350 

The  bill  was  then  passed  by  a  vote  of  51  to  19.351    Im- 


349  Preisker's  proposed  amendment  was  in  full  as  follows: 

"In  line  9,  section  1,  page  1,  of  the  printed  bill,  strike  out  the 
word  'forever.' 

"Also:  At  the  end  of  section  1,  on  page  2.  of  the  printed  bill, 
strike  out  the  period  after  the  word  'purposes,'  and  insert  the  fol- 
lowing: ";  and  further  reserving  in  the  people  of  the  State  of 
California  the  absolute  right  at  any  time  to  take  over  all  rights, 
title  or  interest  by  this  Act  given,  upon  the  non-fulfillment  by  said 
city  of  Los  Angeles  of  any  of  the  conditions  in  this  Act  contained, 
and  also  reserving  the  right,  at  any  time  after  fifty  years  from  the 
taking  effect  of  this  Act,  to  take  over  all  the  rights,  title  or  interest 
by  this  Act  given,  upon  the  payment  by  the  State  of  California  to 
said  city  of  Los  Angeles,  or  its  successors,  of  the  reasonable  value 
of  all  improvements  placed  upon  the  tide  lands  herein  described.'  " 

350  The    vote    on    Preisker's    amendment    was    as    follows,    the 
names  of  the  members  from  the  four  centers  of  population  directly 
interested  in  the  Tide  Lands  bills  being  printed  in  black: 

Ayes:  Messrs.  Chandler,  Cunningham,  Feeley,  Gaylord,  Griffin 
of  Modesto,  Guill,  Hamilton,  Harlan,  Hayes,  Held,  Hewitt,  Jaspar, 
Kehoe,  Kennedy,  Malone,  March,  McDonald,  Mendenhall,  Mott, 
Mullally,  Polsley,  Preisker,  Ryan,  Sbragia,  Slater,  Stevenot,  Stuck- 
enbruck,  Telfer,  Walsh,  Wilson,  and  Wyllie — 31. 

Noes:  Messrs.  Beatty,  Beckett,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Bishop, 
Bohnett,  Brown,  Butler,  Callaghan,  Cattell,  Clark,  Coghlan,  Cogs- 
well, Cronin,  Crosby,  Far-well,  Fitzgerald,  Griffiths,  Hall,  H Inkle, 
Hinshaw,  Joel,  Judson.  Lamb,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Lyon  of  San 
Francisco,  Maher,  McGowen,  Nolan,  Randall,  Rogers  of  Alameda, 
Rutherford,  Schmitt,  Smith,  Tibbits,  Williams,  and  Young— 37. 

351  The  vote  by  which  the  Los  Angeles  Tide  Lands  bill  (Senate 
Bill  445)   was  passed  was  as  follows,   the  names   of  the  members 
from    the   four   centers   of   population   directly   interested   being  in 
black: 

For  the  bill:  Beatty,  Beckett,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Bishop,  Bliss, 
Bohnett,  Brown,  Butler,  Callaghan,  Cattell,  Clark,  Coghlan,  Cogs- 
well, Cronin,  Crosby,  Farwell,  Fitzgerald,  Flint,  Gaylord,  Griffiths, 
Hall,  Hlnkle,  Hinshaw,  Hewitt,  Joel,  Judson,  Kennedy,  Lamb, 
Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco,  Maher,  Malone,  Mc- 
Gowen, Mendenhall,  Mott,  Nolan,  Randall,  Rogers  of  Alameda, 
Rosendale,  Rutherford,  Ryan,  Sbragia,  Schmitt,  Smith,  Telfer,  Tib- 
bits,  Walsh,  Williams,  Wyllie,  and  Young— 51. 

Against  the  bill:  Chandler,  Cunningham,  Feeley,  Griffin  of  Mo- 
desto, Guill,  Hamilton,  Harlan,  Hayes,  Held,  Jasper,  March, 
McDonald,  Mullally,  Polsley,  Preisker,  Slater,  Stevenot,  Stucken- 
bruck,  and  Wilson — 19. 


314          The  Tide  Lands  Controversy 

mediately  after,  the  Oakland  Tide  Lands  bill  was  passed 
by  a  vote  of  48  to  13.352 

The  other  Tide  Lands  measures  passed  the  Assem- 
bly, the  first  part  of  the  "gentlemen's  agreement"  thereby 
being  fulfilled. 

The  second  part  of  the  agreement  will  be  up  for  ful- 
filment when  San  Francisco  decides  that  the  time  has 
come  for  her  to  take  over  the  State's  valuable  properties 
on  the  San  Francisco  waterfront.853 


352  The  vote  by  which  the  Oakland  Tide  Lands  bill  (Senate  Bill 
399)  passed  the  Assembly  was  as  follows: 

For  the  bill:  Beatty,  Beckett,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Bliss,  Bohnett, 
Brown,  Callaghan,  Cattell,  Clark,  Coghlan,  Cogswell,  Crosby,  Cun- 
ningham, Farwell,  Feeley,  Fitzgerald,  Flint,  Gaylord,  Griffiths,  Hall, 
Hlnkle,  Hinshaw,  Hewitt,  Joel,  Judson,  Kennedy,  Lamb,  Lyon  of 
Los  Angeles,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco,  Malone,  McDonald,  McGowen, 
Mendennall,  Mullally,  Nolan,  Randall,  Rogers  of  Alameda.  Ruther- 
ford, Ryan,  Schmitt,  Smith,  Telfer,  Tibbits,  Walsh,  Williams, 
Wyllie,  and  Young — 48. 

Against  the  bill:  Griffin  of  Modesto,  Gulll,  Harlan,  Held,  Jasper, 
Kehoe,  March,  Polsley,  Preisker,  Slater,  Stevenot,  Stuckenbruck, 
and  Wilson — 13. 

This  bill  did  not  have  the  San  Francisco  opposition  that  was 
given  the  Los  Angeles  measure. 

353  That   San   Francisco's   interest   in   the   State's  properties  on 
her  water  front  is  largely  political  is  admitted  by  the  more  frank. 
Says  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle  in  its  issue  of  March  17,   1911, 
in  discussing  this  issue: 

"The  harbor  front,  like  all  our  other  institutions,  is  a  refuge  for 
politicians  and  likely  to  remain  so.  There  are  some  politicians  who 
are  honest  and  effective,  but  a  great  many  more  who  are  neither. 
If  it  is  to  be  a  political  refuge — which  it  ought  not  to  be — we  want 
it  to  be  a  refuge  for  San  Francisco  politicians." 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 
SECTIONAL  DIVISIONS. 

Increase  of  Population  in  Los  Angeles,  San  Francisco 
and  Alameda  Counties  Gave  Rise  to  New  Issues, 
and  Divided  the  Legislature  on  New  Lines. 

When  division  occurred  between  the  three  chief  cen- 
ters of  population,  Alameda,  Los  Angeles  and  San  Fran- 
cisco, over  bills  or  amendments  in  which  one  or  more 
of  them  were  interested,  the  measures  were  defeated. 

United,  San  Francisco,  Los  Angeles  and  Alameda, 
even  under  the  1901-11  apportionment,  control  the  Legis- 
lature. This  was  shown  in  the  passage  of  the  Tide  Lands 
bills  in  the  face  of  the  vigorous  opposition  from  the 
interior. 

But,  divided,  the  three  counties  were  helpless  to  secure 
affirmative  action  on  measures  in  which  one  or  more 
of  them  were  interested. 

This  was  shown  in  the  defeat  of  the  so-called  Greater 
San  Francisco  Constitutional  amendment,  which  had  for 
its  object  the  consolidation  of  some  thirty-two  communi- 
ties about  San  Francisco  bay  into  one  municipality.  The 
same  thing  was  shown  in  the  defeat  of  the  so-called 
"Throop"  bill,  which  had  for  its  purpose  the  establish- 
ment of  an  Institute  of  Technology  in  Southern  Califor- 
nia. 

San  Francisco  and  Alameda  divided  on  the  Greater 


316  Sectional  Divisions 

San  Francisco  amendment,  with  Los  Angeles  a  more  or 
less  disinterested  on-looker.  Alameda  and  Los  Angeles 
divided  on  the  Throop  School  issue,  San  Francisco  siding 
against  Los  Angeles. 

The  Greater  San  Francisco  Constitutional  amend- 
ment was  not  adopted ;  the  Throop  bill  was  defeated. 

The  Throop  bill  had  its  origin  in  the  new  conditions 
due  to  the  increase  of  population  in  Southern  California. 
The  populous  southern  district  came  before  the  Legisla- 
ture asking  an  appropriation  of  $1,000,000  to  establish 
in  one  of  the  southern  counties  a  technical  school  to  be 
named  the  California  Institute  of  Technology.354 

Immediately,  the  cry  was  raised  that  the  proposed 
Institute  of  Technology  for  Southern  California  was  to 
be  a  second  State  University.  This  brought  against  the 
plan  all  the  powerful  forces  of  the  University  of  Califor- 
nia. The  opposition  insisted  that  the  State  cannot  afford 
two  universities.  The  proponents  of  the  plan,  however, 
insisted  that  an  Institute  of  Technology  is  not  a  Uni- 
versity. Nevertheless,  the  Institute  of  Technology  bill 
was  not  forced  in  either  House. 

However,  on  February  7  Senator  Gates  introduced  in 
the  Upper  House,  and  Assemblyman  Farwell  in  the 
Lower,  a  measure  to  take  over  the  Throop  Polytechnic 

854  See  Assembly  bill  902  (Farwell)  and  Its  companion  measure 
Senate  bill  693  (Gates).  The  measure  provided  that  the  school 
should  be  located  either  in  Santa  Barbara,  Ventura,  Los  Angeles, 
San  Bernardino,  Riverside,  Orange,  San  Diego,  or  Imperial  County. 
The  course  of  study  provided  embraced  "instruction  in  the  various 
branches  of  agriculture,  commercial,  industrial,  scientific  and  tech- 
nical work."  Another  section  provided  that  "it  is  hereby  expressly 
declared  that  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  liberally  construed 
to  the  end  that  justice  may  be  done  and  that  the  work  of  the 
school  may  prosper." 

The  Gates  bill  died  in  the  Senate  Committee  on  Education. 
On  the  day  before  adjournment  (March  26)  the  Farwell  bill  was 
reported  out  of  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Education  "Without 
recommendation."  It  got  no  further. 


Sectional  Divisions  317 

Institute  at  Pasadena,855  and  to  conduct  it  as  a  State 
school  to  be  known  as  the  California  Institute  of  Tech- 
nology. For  the  purposes  of  the  school  an  appropriation 
of  $500,000  was  provided.  Of  this  amount,  $100,000 
was  to  be  used  to  meet  the  current  expenses  of  the  two 
fiscal  years  ending  June  30,  1912,  and  June  30,  1913. 
The  remaining  $400,000  was  made  available  during  the 
fiscal  years  1912  and  1913  for  new  construction  and  care 
of  the  grounds  and  buildings. 

Later  on,  in  the  Senate,  this  $500,000  appropriation 
was  reduced  to  $100,000,  provision  being  made  for  the 
current  expenses  of  the  Institute  for  the  two  years,  and 
nothing  provided  for  new  construction. 

But  this  reduction  from  a  $1,000,000  to  a  $100,000 
appropriation  did  not  ease  opposition  in  the  least.  Indeed, 
a  further  argument  was  furnished,  that  the  funds  pro- 
vided were  not  sufficient  to  maintain  the  class  of  technical 
school  promised.858  The  opposition  contended  that  a 
$100,000  school  might  not  injure  the  State  University, 
but  that  it  would  serve  as  an  entering  wedge  for  an 
institution  that  in  the  end  would  rival  disastrously  the 
Berkeley  institution.  And  then  the  further  argument  was 

355  The  provisions  of  the  bill  were  conditioned  upon  the  trans- 
fer to  the  State  of  the  entire  Throop  Polytechnic  Institute  prop- 
erty,  said  to  be  well   worth   $1,000,000.     The   Throop   management 
was  at  the  time  prepared  to  make   the  transfer. 

356  In    the    Pacific    Outlook    for  "February    11,    1911,    President 
Scherer  of  the  Throop  Institute  referred  to  the  proposed  California 
Institute  of  Technology  as   one   "rivaling  the   one   at   Boston    (al- 
though with  broader  courses) — a  school  that  should  set   the  pace 
for  American  Institutions." 

Commenting  upon  Dr.  Scherer's  statement,  a  gentleman  who 
has  been  a  close  observer  of  the  work  of  such  institutions,  wrote, 
while  the  Throop  bill  was  pending,  as  follows: 

"Just  to  give  you  an  Idea  of  what  It  means  to  conduct  an  in- 
stitution rivaling  the  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology  (not 
to  mention  one  'with  broader  courses')  I  will  quote  a  few  figures 
from  the  Treasurer's  report  of  that  institution  for  the  year  ending 
Sept.  30,  1909,  that  being  the  most  recent  one  at  hand.  In  the 
first  place  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  they  charge  the  students 


Sectional  Divisions 

advanced  that  the  feeling  behind  the  bill  was  purely  sec- 
tional, the  beginning  of  a  movement  for  State  division.357 

one  of  the  largest  tuition  fees  demanded  in  America,  namely,  $250 

each   per  year: 

'Income  for  the  year $545,974.54 

'Expense  for  the  year 575,794.35 


'Deficiency   of    income $29,819.51 

'Their  income  from  students  was $341,195.54 

'Net  income   from   endowments 79,958.47* 

'Grant  from  State  of  Massachusetts 29,000.00 

•Grant   from    U.    S 18,643.01 

'Gift  from  Alumni  Fund  for  current  expenses    41,147.94 

"  'Miscellaneous  items  make  up  the  balance  of  the  income.' 

"Here,  then,  is  the  institution  which  the  State  is  to  rival.  On 
the  basis  of  its  deserved  reputation — and  it  has  some  of  the  strong- 
est men  in  the  land  on  its  faculty — it  has  been  able  to  attract  1500 
students  willing  and  able  to  pay  an  annual  tuition  of  $250.00  each. 
What  would  take  the  place  of  this  item  of  income  for  the  Cali- 
fornia Institute  of  Technology?  It  must  be  remembered  that  if 
'broad  courses'  are  to  be  offered  of  equal  grade  with  the  Massa- 
chusetts Institute,  a  complete  faculty  of  equal  grade  must  be 
provided  whether  the  students  be  many  or  few.  And  the  one 
item  of  teachers'  salaries  alone  at  'Technology'  is  $336,100.94. 

"The  Massachusetts  Institute  has  the  income  from  endowment 
funds  of  over  $2,000,000.  What  would  take  .the  place  of  this? 

"The  Institute  of  Technology  has  a  large  and  prosperous  alumni 
body  contributing  over  $40,000  per  year  to  keep  things  going. 
What  would  take  the  place  of  this?  The  Institute  of  Technology 
gets  nearly  $50,000  a  year  from  State  and  Nation.  What  would 
this  item  have  to  be  from  the  State  of  California,  no  national  aid 
being  forthcoming,  and  to  provide  for  the  deficiencies  on  the  other 
items  enumerated?  Would  it  not,  in  round  numbers,  have  to  be 
$500,000.00  a  year? 

"Of  course  if  someone  stands  ready  to  endow  the  institution 
with  not  less  than  $10,000,000.00  it  is  a  different  matter.  Or  if 
the  institution  contents  itself  with  more  moderate  ambitions. 

"The  Carnegie  Technical  Schools  at  Pittsburgh  would  scarcely 
claim  to  rival  the  Institute  of  Technology.  In  1900  the  citizens 
of  that  city  were  considering  spending  $100,000.00  for  a  technical 
high  school.  Mr.  Carnegie,  learning  this,  offered  to  provide  the 
necessary  funds.  He  started  with  $1,000,000.00.  I  take  this  seri- 
tence  from  their  last  catalogue:  'Mr.  Carnegie,  .  .  .  has  not 
only  provided  funds  for  new  buildings,  but  has  increased  his  orig- 
inal gift  of  one  million  dollars  to  seven  millions.'  Note  that  seven 
millions.  It  gives  an  idea  of  what  this  sort  of  thing  costs.  And 
the  Carnegie  School  is  modest  in  its  claims.  Its  low  entrance 
requirements  alone  place  it  in  a  different  class  from  those  doing 
the  grade  of  work  of  the  Massachusetts  Institute.  This  is  no 
disparagement  of  the  Carnegie  Schools,  they  are  doing  a  work  of 
utmost  value,  even  if  they  are  not  'setting  the  pace  for  American 
institutions.'  " 

357  "There  is  no  one  thing  in  the  State,"  said  Warren  Olney,  Jr., 
who  opposed  the  Throop  bill,  "which  has  so  united  it,  as  the 
host  of  graduates  who  have  gone  out  from  the  University  to  all 
portions  of  the  State.  For  this  reason  alone  I  believe  the  meas- 
ure (the  Throop  bill)  should  be  opposed." 

•  Principal  being   $2,185,822.37. 


Sectional  Divisions  319 

The  contest  over  the  Throop  bill  came  in  the  Senate. 
The  University  of  California  being  in  Alameda  county, 
the  leadership  of  the  opposition  was  finally  assumed  by 
Alameda  Senators.  The  University  alumni  had  a  strong 
lobby  at  Sacramento  to  fight  the  measure.  The  San 
Francisco  press  joined  in  the  opposition.  It  was  charged 
that  large  financial  institutions  had  thrown  their  powerful 
influence  against  the  bill. 

In  their  efforts  to  meet  this  storm  of  opposition,  the 
proponents  of  the  bill  amended  it  to  provide  "that  the 
work  of  said  institution  shall  be  confined  to  instruction  in 
engineering." 

But  this  olive  branch  was  swept  aside  with  statements 
from  the  opposition  that  the  State  University  now  has 
full  and  complete  engineering  departments  with  an  in- 
vestment in  them  of  about  $2,000,000.  So  far  as  oppor- 
tunities for  instruction  in  engineering  are  concerned,  it 
was  contended,  the  State  University  now  supplies  these 
opportunities. 

The  Southern  delegation  contended,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  it  is  a  far  trip  from  Southern  California  to  Berkeley, 
that  the  southern  people,  in  common  justice,  should  have 
the  privilege  of  educating  their  children  near  home. 
Senator  Caminetti,  not  from  the  South,  but  from  northern 
Amador,  insisted  that  if  he  had  his  way,  such  an  institute 
as  was  proposed  should  be  established  in  every  important 
community  in  the  State.  But  the  opposition  with  Ala- 
meda as  its  backbone,  and  San  Francisco  against  Los 
Angeles,  rather  increased  its  efforts  after  Caminetti's 
frank  announcement. 

When  the  measure  came  up  for  final  passage,  it  was 


320  Sectional  Divisions 

defeated  by  a  vote  of  14  to  2 1.358  Not  a  San  Francisco 
or  Alameda  county  member  voted  for  it ;  not  a  Los  An- 
geles county  member  voted  against  it. 

Senator  Wright,  on  a  motion  to  reconsider,  kept  the 
issue  alive  for  several  days  longer,  but  at  the  request  of 
President  Scherer  of  Throop  School,  Senator  Gates 
finally  withdrew  the  bill.359 

An  equally  bitter  contest  was  brought  on  by  the  so- 
called  Greater  San  Francisco  amendment,  but  the  division 
was  on  other  lines.  Here  the  principals  were  San  Fran- 
cisco and  Alameda,  with  Los  Angeles  quite  disinterested. 
Indeed,  Los  Angeles  had  introduced  a  greater-city  amend- 
ment of  her  own.360  It  would  have  been  easy  for  Los 

358  The  Senate  vote  by  which  the  Throop  bill  was  defeated  was 
as   follows: 

For  the  bill — Avey,  Bell,  Bills,  Black,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cur- 
tin,  Estudillo,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Hurd,  Roseberry,  Thompson,  and 
Walker— 14. 

Against  the  bill — Birdsall,  Boynton,  Bryant,  Burnett,  Cassldy, 
Cutten,  Finn,  Hans,  Hare,  Holohan,  Juilliard,  Lewis,  Martinelli, 
Regan,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Stetson,  Strobrldge,  Tyrrell,  Welch, 
and  Wright— 21. 

The  names  of  the  members  from  Los  Angeles  (all  for  the  bill), 
San  Francisco  and  Alameda  (all  against  the  bill),  are  printed  in 
black. 

359  Dr.  Scherer's  telegram  to  Senator  Gates,  advising  that  the 
bill  be  withdrawn,  was  as  follows: 

"Please  withdraw  Throop  proposition  absolutely.  The  Senate 
has  spoken  once,  and  we  are  unwilling  to  seek  to  force  our  gift 
upon  the  State  or  to  invite  a  prolongation  of  the  kind  of  warfare 
that  defeated  the  bill  last  Friday.  Feel  at  liberty  to  read  this 
before  the  Senate  and  to  publish." 

860  Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  No.  28.  This  amendment 
added  a  new  section  to  Art.  XI  and  provided  that  "Cities  governed 
under  charters  framed  under  the  authority  given  by  section  eight 
of  this  article  may,  under  general  laws,  be  consolidated  with  other 
cities  into  one  municipal  corporation,  whether  such  other  cities 
are  governed  under  charter  so  framed,  or  are  incorporated  under 
general  or  special  laws,  and  such  consolidated  municipal  corpora- 
tions shall  be  governed  as  a  city  with  the  name  of  the  one  of  such 
cities  having  the  greatest  population,  determined  as  provided  by 
general  laws,  and  under  the  charter  or  laws  governing  such  city 
having  the  greatest  population.  The  provisions  of  this  Constitu- 
tion applicable  to  cities  shall  apply  to  such  consolidated  municipal 
corporation." 


Sectional  Divisions  321 

Angeles  and  San  Francisco  to  have  united  on  this  issue, 
had  it  not  been  for  the  fight  over  the  Throop  bill.  In 
siding  with  Alameda  in  that  controversy,  San  Francisco 
lost  the  opportunity  to  get  Los  Angeles  support  for  the 
Greater  San  Francisco  amendment,  nor  did  San  Francisco 
gain  Alameda  as  an  ally.  In  a  previous  chapter  it  was 
shown  how  in  the  reapportionment  fight,  Alameda  finally 
went  over  to  Los  Angeles.  All  that  San  Francisco  got 
for  her  opposition  to  the  Throop  bill,  was  the  satisfaction 
given  some  of  the  San  Francisco  delegation  that  Los 
Angeles  had  been  denied  something  which  that  city  ap- 
peared to  want  badly.  San  Francisco  went  into  her  con- 
test with  Alameda  over  the  Greater  San  Francisco  amend- 
ment with  Los  Angeles  apparently  indifferent  to  the  out- 
come. 

The  amendment  was  introduced  by  Senator  Wolfe. 
Its  immediate  purpose  was  to  provide  means  for  consoli- 
dation of  the  cities  about  San  Francisco  bay,  including 
those  on  the  Alameda  county  shore.  It  was  asserted, 
and  so  far  as  I  know  not  denied,  that  thirty-two  com- 
munities, large  and  small,  were  affected. 

The  opposition  to  the  measure  came  principally  from 
the  cities  of  Alameda  county,  the  City  of  Alameda,  popu- 
lation 23,383,  being  the  only  community  of  the  county  to 
favor  the  proposed  scheme  for  annexation. 

Oakland  opposed  the  amendment  vigorously,  Senator 
Stetson  leading  the  fight  against  it.  San  Francisco  la- 
bored under  the  great  disadvantage  of  poor  representation 
on  the  floor  of  the  Senate.361  The  day  when  bombast, 

361  The  San  Francisco  Chronicle  dubbed  the  San  Francisco 
members  "pygmies."  On  the  night  of  the  hearing  on  the  Greater 
San  Francisco  amendment  before  the  joint  Senate  and  Assembly 
committees,  the  writer  was  talking  to  a  prominent  San  Francisco 


322  Sectional  Divisions 

vilification  and  personal  abuse  can  be  substituted  for  argu- 
ment on  the  floor  of  the  California  Senate  has  passed. 
With  nine  San  Francisco  members  on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate,  when  the  Greater  San  Francisco  amendment  came 
up  for  adoption,  only  nineteen  members,  two  of  them 
from  Los  Angeles  (Hewitt  and  Kurd)  voted  for  it.362 

Four  days  later,  the  amendment  was  again  brought 
before  the  Senate  on  a  motion  to  reconsider.  But  again 
was  it  refused  adoption,363  failing  to  secure  the  necessary 
twenty-seven  votes.  San  Francisco,  with  a  representation 
of  almost  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the  Senate,  found  her- 
self defeated  in  her  principal  fight  of  the  session. 

The  completeness  of  the  defeat  was  well  recognized. 

businessman  while  waiting  for  the  meeting  to  be  called  to  order. 
As  the  San  Francisco  delegation  came  in  the  businessman  eyed 
the  members  closely.  Soon  after,  two  Los  Angeles  Assemblymen, 
clean-cut,  well  dressed,  confident  of  their  position,  came  in. 

"Who  are  those  men?"  the  San  Franciscan  asked. 

I   told  him. 

"Why,"  he  demanded,  "cannot  San  Francisco  send  such  men  to 
the  Legislature?" 

"We  cannot,"  said  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle  bitterly,  in  an 
editorial  article,  "rely  on  our  (San  Francisco)  representatives  in 
the  Legislature  to  secure  us  fair  treatment,  for  we  send  pygmies 
to  Sacramento  to  deal  with  the  able  and  united  phalanx  which 
the  South  sends  up." 

The  Chronicle  might  have  added  that  as  able  a  phalanx  comes 
from  Alameda  County  as  from  the  South. 

362  The  vote  on  the  Greater  San  Francisco  amendment  was  as 
follows: 

For  the  amendment — Beban,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boynton, 
Bryant,  Burnett,  Cassidy,  Estudillo,  Finn,  Hare,  Hewitt,  Holohan, 
Hurd,  Regan,  Shanahan,  Walker,  Welch,  and  Wright — 19. 

Against  the  amendment — Avey,  Bell,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cart- 
wright,  Curtin,  Cutten,  Gates,  Hans,  Juilliard,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Mar- 
tinelli,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Sanford,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson, 
Tyrrell,  and  Wolfe — 21. 

863  The  second  vote  on  the  Greater  San  Francisco  amendment 
was  as  follows: 

For  the  amendment — Beban,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boynton, 
Bryant,  Burnett,  Caminetti,  Cassidy,  Estudillo,  Finn,  Hare,  Hewitt, 
Holohan,  Hurd,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Shanahan,  Walker,  Welch, 
Wolfe,  and  Wright— 22. 

Against  the  amendment — Avey,  Bell,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cur- 
tin,  Cutten,  Gates,  Hans,  Larkins,  Roseberry,  Sanford,  Stetson, 
Strobridge,  Thompson,  and  Tyrrell — 15. 


Sectional  Divisions  323 

"This  means,"  said  a  legislative  representative  of  the  San 
Francisco  Call  in  a  dispatch  sent  from  Sacramento,  March 
18,  "that  the  people  about  the  lower  end  of  San  Francisco 
bay  will  not  be  enabled  to  vote  upon  consolidation  unless 
the  Hewitt  amendment  designed  for  the  needs  of  Los 
Angeles  be  adopted,  and  the  inhabitants  within  the  San 
Francisco  metropolitan  area  avail  themselves  of  it." 

This  Hewitt  Greater  City  amendment  was  later  on 
adopted  in  the  Senate  without  a  dissenting  vote,  but  it 
was  noted  that  only  one  Alameda  county  member  (Stro- 
bridge)  voted  for  it.36* 

The  Hewitt  amendment  was  not  adopted  in  the  As- 
sembly, however,  and  was  not  submitted  to  The  People 
for  ratification. 


36*  The  Hewitt  Greater  City  amendment  (S.  C.  A.  28)  was 
adopted  in  the  Senate  by  the  following  vote: 

For  the  amendment — Avey,  Bell,  Bills,  Black,  Boynton,  Bryant, 
Burnett,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cassidy,  Finn,  Gates,  Hare,  Hewitt, 
Holohan,  Hurd,  Juilliard,  Lewis,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Roseberry, 
Rush,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Walker,  Welch,  Wolfe,  and  Wright 
—28. 

Against  the  amendment — None. 

The  names  of  the  Senators  from  San  Francisco,  Los  Angeles 
and  Alameda  counties  are  printed  in  black. 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 
CONCERNING  MANY  MEASURES. 

Board  of  Control — Home  Rule  for  Counties  Amendment 
— Amendment  of  Banking  Act — Equal  Suffrage — 
Prison  Reform  Measures — Commonwealth  Club  Bills 
— Short  Ballot  Measures — Japanese  Bills. 

Few  of  the  Progressive  measures  considered  in  pre- 
vious chapters  received  favorable  consideration  except 
in  the  teeth  of  opposition  from  influences  outside  the 
Legislature.  Thus,  many  holding  judicial  office  exerted 
themselves,  more  or  less  directly,  to  prevent  provision  for 
recall  of  the  judiciary  being  included  in  the  Recall  amend- 
ment. In  this,  as  has  been  seen,  they  were  unsuccessful. 

The  so-called  Superintendent  of  Banks  act  (Assembly 
bill  684)   was  another  measure  which  became  a  law  in 
spite     of    powerful     opposition.     The 
AMENDMENT      measure  amended  the  1909  Bank  act. 
OF  BANK-  Originally,  the  law  made  the  term  of 

ING  LAW.  the  State  Superintendent  of  Banks  four 

years,  unless  the  Superintendent  were 
removed  for  cause.  The  1911  amendment  made  the  ten- 
ure of  office  at  the  pleasure  of  the  Governor. 

The  change  in  the  law  was  brought  about  because  of 
a  series  of  perhaps  the  least  creditable  acts  of  Governor 
Gillett's  administration. 

Alden  Anderson,  State  Superintendent  of  Banks  un- 


Concerning  Many  Measures  325 

der  Gillett,  had  resigned  his  office,  July  1,  1910.  Ander- 
son was  then  candidate  for  the  Republican  nomination 
for  Governor.  There  was  some  talk  at  the  time  that  An- 
derson's resignation  "had  a  string  to  it,"  but  this  was 
hotly  denied.  Nevertheless,  Anderson's  resignation  was 
not  accepted,  and  he  continued  Bank  Superintendent. 

A  month  before  Gillett's  term  as  Governor  expired, 
he  re-appointed  Anderson  Bank  Commissioner  to  serve 
for  "the  term  prescribed  by  law."  The  term  is  for  four 
years. 

Even  more  reprehensible  was  Gillett's  appointments 
of  Commissioner  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor,  and  of  Building 
and  Loan  Commissioners. 

The  term  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  Bureau  of  La- 
bor would  have  expired  on  July  1,  1911.  On  January  2, 
1911,  the  Commissioner  resigned.  This  was  the  day  be- 
fore Gillett's  term  of  office  expired.  Gillett  promptly 
appointed  the  Commissioner's  successor  to  serve  four 
years. 

The  terms  of  the  Building  and  Loan  Commissioners 
would  have  expired  on  January  7,  1911.  On  January  2, 
five  days  before  their  terms  would  have  expired,  the  com- 
missioners resigned  their  offices,  and  Governor  Gillett 
appointed  their  successors  to  four-year  terms. 

Governor  Johnson,  in  a  special  message  to  the  Legis- 
lature, recommended  legislation  which  should  make  such 
sharp  practice  impossible  in  the  future.365  This  would 

365  Referring  to  Governor  Gillett's  forced  appointments,  Gov- 
ernor Johnson  in  his  message  to  the  Legislature  said: 

"By  this  simple  short  cut,  these  four  important  offices  were 
appropriated  in  the  last  hours  of  my  predecessor. 

"This  sort  of  practice  I  believe  to  be  detrimental  to  the  public 
service,  and  beyond  that,  I  believe  it  is  beneath  the  dignity  of  the 


326  Concerning  Many  Measures 

make  Johnson  the  first  Governor  who  would  be  barred  by 
the  law  from  doing  what  Gillett  had  done.  The  most 
important  of  the  measures  which  became  laws  as  protest 
against  Gillett's  act  was  Assembly  bill  684,  which  deals 
with  the  office  of  Superintendent  of  Banks. 

Against  the  passage  of  this  measure  was  arrayed  a 
considerable  portion  of  the  banking  interests  of  the  State, 
that  element  popularly  known  as  "Big  Business,"  and  the 
machine  politicians  who  at  the  1910  election  had  been 
ousted  from  control  of  State  affairs. 

Every  "pull"  which  this  allied  group  could  command 
to  defeat  the  measure  was  employed.  Bankers  appealed 
to  members  of  the  Legislature  to  vote  against  the  bill. 
The  controlled  press  cried  out  at  the  alleged  wrong  of  it ; 
the  scattered  members  of  what  had  been  the  Southern  Pa- 
cific political  organization,  exerted  themselves  to  secure  its 
defeat.  The  issue  was  clearly  drawn  between  the  pro- 
gressive administration  on  the  one  side,  and  on  the  other, 
those  bad  influences  which  Governor  Johnson  had  pledged 
himself  to  "kick  out  of  politics,"  out  of  the  government 
of  the  State. 


office  of  Governor  to  permit  that  office  to  be  used  for  such  purposes 
in  the  closing  hours  of  the  term  of  any  incumbent. 

"I  ask  you,  therefore,  for  such  an  Act  as  will  prevent,  in  the 
future,  any  such  appropriation  of  the  public  service,  and  as  will 
render  it  impossible  for  any  Governor  hereafter,  by  the  simple 
expedient  of  having  his  appointees  resign,  to  continue  those  ap- 
pointees in  office  during  the  term  of  his  successor. 

"I  am  told  that  in  former  administrations,  appointments  have 
been  made  in  the  last  hours  of  the  incumbent  Governor,  but  in 
every  instance  these  appointments  were  made  where  vacancies 
existed  or  terms  had  expried.  The  method  recently  adopted,  of 
resignations,  and  thus  lengthening  terms,  has  just  been  employed 
for  the  first  time. 

"It  is  my  wish  that  such  Act  as  you  provide  shall  be  operative 
upon  the  present  incumbent  of  the  office  of  Governor,  and  inas- 
much as  the  inhibition  will  first  be  operative  upon  the  present 
Governor,  it  ought  to  be  apparent  that  our  design  is  one  solely 
for  the  benefit  of  the  public  service." 


Concerning  Many  Measures  327 

And  in  the  end,  although  at  times  defeat  was  peril- 
ously near,  the  new  order  prevailed.  Assembly  bill  684 
became  a  law  with  only  two  members  of  the  120  in  the 
Legislature  voting  against  it.  The  two  adverse  votes 
were  cast  by  Senators  Wolfe  and  Wright.366 

The  laws  governing  the  Building  and  Loan  Commis- 
sion, and  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  were  amended 
practically  without  opposition  to  prevent  recurrence  in 
future  of  the  course  taken  by  Governor  Gillett  to  force 
appointments  in  these  offices.  The  feature  of  the  amend- 
ment of  those  laws  was  the  unavailing  effort  of  those 
who  had  secured  the  last-day  appointments  from  Gov- 
ernor Gillett,  to  prevent  the  amendments  being  made. 

The    1911     Legislature    submitted    a    constitutional 
amendment  to  The  People,  which  gives  counties  the  op- 
tion of  continuing  to  be  governed  by 
CHARTER  general    State   laws,    or   to   adopt   a 

GOVERNMENT  charter  form  of  government,  not  un- 
FOR  COUNTIES,  like  that  enjoyed  by  municipalities.  A 
similar  amendment  had  been  intro- 
duced at  the  1909  session  by  Assemblyman  A.  M.  Drew 
of  Fresno.366* 

The  machine  element  in  the  Assembly  lined  up  against 
the  1909  amendment;  the  Progressives  generally  sup- 
ported it. 

When  the  measure  came  to  vote  it  was  refused  adoption 
by  a  vote  of  34  for  it  to  27  against  it,  54  votes  being 
necessary  for  its  submission  to  the  electors. 

see  For  the  vote  on  Assembly  bill  684,  see  tables  I  and  II, 
Senate  and  Assembly  Test  votes,  in  the  appendix. 

aeea  Similar  constitutional  amendments  had  been  introduced  as 
early  as  1899,  but  none  of  them  were  given  serious  consideration. 


328  Concerning  Many  Measures 

On  a  motion  to  reconsider,  a  second  vote  was  taken 
later  in  the  session,  36  members  voting  for  it,  and  30 
against  it. 

In  this  way  the  submission  of  the  County  Charter 
amendment  went  into  the  long  list  of  unfinished  business 
of  the  1909  session,  to  be  taken  up  in  1911. 

The  amendment  introduced  at  the  1911  session  pro- 
vides that  by  resolution  of  three-fifths  of  the  Board  of 
Supervisors,  or  on  initiative  petition  of  15  per  cent,  of  the 
electors  of  a  county,  computed  on  the  vote  for  all  the  can- 
didates for  Governor  at  the  last  preceding  general  elec- 
tion, an  election  shall  be  called  to  name  fifteen  freeholders 
to  prepare  a  charter  for  the  county's  governmental  organ- 
ization. 

On  the  ratification  by  a  majority  of  the  electors  of  the 
county,  of  the  charter  thus  drawn,  it  goes  to  the  Legisla- 
ture exactly  like  municipal  charters  for  approval  or 
rejection.  The  Legislature  must  approve  or  reject,  it 
cannot,  under  the  terms  of  Senate  Amendment  No.  5, 
alter  or  amend. 

Counties  are  left  free  to  avail  themselves  of  the  op- 
portunity for  charter  government  offered, ( or  to  continue 
under  the  system  of  general  laws.  But  a  county  adopting 
a  county  charter  becomes  in  a  measure  as  free  as  a  char- 
tered municipality. 

As  in  the  case  of  most  of  the  reforms  that  were  de- 
feated at  the  1909  session,  the  County  Charter  amend- 
ment had  a  clear  course  at  the  session  of  1911. 

The  measure  was  adopted  in  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of 
29  to  2,  Senators  Wolfe  and  Regan  being  the  only  mem- 


Concerning  Many  Measures  329 

bers  to  vote  against  it.     Both  these  gentlemen  are  from 
San  Francisco. 

In  the  Assembly,  the  amendment  was  adopted  by  a 
vote  of  59  to  5.  The  five  members  voting  against  it, 
were  Cunningham,  Feeley,  Kennedy,  March  and  Walsh. 

Four  of  these  gentlemen,  Cunningham,  Feeley,  Ken- 
nedy and  Walsh,  are  from  San  Francisco.  Assemblyman 
March  is  from  Sacramento. 

Thus,  of  the  seven  men  who  voted  against  the  amend- 
ment, six  were  from  San  Francisco,  although  the  amend- 
ment does  not  apply  to  the  City  and  County  of  San  Fran- 
cisco at  all,  merely  giving  to  outside  counties  the  same 
privileges  of  self-government  which  San  Francisco  al- 
ready enjoys. 

Another  measure  which  met  with  powerful,  but  un- 
availing opposition,  was  the  Equal  Suffrage  amendment.367 
The   old-time   machine   had   treated 
EQUAL  equal  suffrage  as  a  moral  as  well  as  a 

SUFFRAGE  political    issue,    opposing    it    on    both 

AMENDMENT,      counts. 

At  the  1909  session,  the  Equal  Suf- 
frage constitutional  amendment  did  not  come  to  a  vote  in 
the  Senate,  but  in  the  1909  Assembly,  40  voted  for  the 
amendment ;  36  voted  against  it ;  54  votes  being  required 
to  submit  the  amendment  for  ratification  by  The  People. 
At  the  same  session,  the  Assembly  by  a  vote  of  38  to  36 
decided  against  giving  the  people  a  practical,  State-wide, 
nominating  vote  for  United  States  Senator.  Of  the 
thirty-eight  Assemblymen  who  voted  against  giving  men 

367  The  Senate  and  Assembly  votes  on  the  Suffrage  amendment 
will  be  found  in  Tables  I  and  II,  in  the  appendix. 


330  Concerning  Many  Measures 

voters  a  part  in  naming  their  United  States  Senators, 
twenty-five  voted  against  giving  any  vote  to  women  at 
all.368 

At  the  1911  session,  five  Senators  voted  against  the 
amendment.  They  were  Hans,  Martinelli,  Sanford, 
Wolfe  and  Wright.  These  five  gentlemen  had  sat  in  the 
1909  Legislature.  Four  of  them,  Martinelli,  Hans,  Wolfe 
and  Wright,  voted  that  session  against  the  plan  to  give 
the  male  voters  a  practical  State-wide  nominating  vote 
for  United  States  Senator. 

Thus,  generally  speaking,  under  the  machine  order, 
those  members  of  the  Legislature  who  opposed  pro- 
gressive political  measures  which  extended  the  powers  of 
the  male  voter,  were  found  in  opposition  to  equal  suffrage. 

On  the  moral  side,  those  members  of  Legislatures 
under  the  rule  of  the  machine  who  opposed  the  passage 
of  measures  to  prevent  the  prostitution  of  horse-racing 
in  the  interest  of  gamblers,  to  provide  for  Local  Option 
elections  and  the  like,  were  as  a  general  thing  opposed  to 
equal  suffrage.  On  the  other  hand,  members  who  favored 
equal  suffrage  were  usually  found  voting  for  the  so-called 
moral  measures,  which  the  machine  element  opposed. 

This  was  well  illustrated  at  the  1909  session.  The 
machine  leaders  in  the  Assembly  that  year,  objected  to 
the  consideration  of  the  Local  Option  bill  in  the  Assem- 
bly before  the  Senate  went  on  record  on  it,  on  the  ground 
that  the  Assembly  had  already  acted  first  on  two  "moral 
issues,"  namely,  equal  suffrage  and  racetrack  gambling, 

368  The  twenty-five  were  Beatty,  Beban,  Collier,  Cullen,  Feeley, 
Greer,  Hammon,  Hanlon,  Hans,  Hawk,  Johnston  of  Contra  Costa, 
Leeds,  Llghtner,  Macaulay,  McClellan,  McManus,  Mott,  Nelson, 
Pugh,  Rech,  Rutherford,  Schmitt,  Stanton,  Transue,  Wagner. 


Concerning  Many  Measures  331 

and  that  it  was  unfair  to  compel  the  Lower  House  to 
lead  off  in  every  "moral  issue"  before  the  Legislature. 

In  "fairness"  to  the  Assembly,  therefore,  the  Local 
Option  bill  was  sidetracked  in  that  body.  Under  this 
interesting  arrangement  the  1909  Senate  Local  Option 
bill  never  reached  the  Assembly,  nor  the  Equal  Suffrage 
amendment  the  Senate. 

The  old  machine  element  classified  equal  suffrage 
along  with  anti-racetrack  gambling  and  local  option 
legislation,  and  very  frankly  set  up  the  same  character 
of  opposition  to  all  three. 

At  the  1910  election,  the  machine  lost  control  of  the 
machinery  of  the  Republican  party.  The  Progressives  in 
control  of  the  Republican  State  convention  declared  for 
equal  suffrage.  The  Republican  members  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  1911,  in  carrying  out  the  pledges  of  their  party 
in  conjunction  with  Progressive  Democrats,  submitted  an 
Equal  Suffrage  amendment  to  the  electors.  The  amend- 
ment met  with  comparatively  little  effective  opposition  in 
either  House.  In  the  Assembly  sixty-six  voted  for  the 
amendment,  and  twelve  against  it.  In  the  Senate  thirty- 
three  voted  for  it,  while  five  voted  in  the  negative. 

The  much-neglected  State  prisons  were  given  more 
intelligent  treatment  by  the  1911  Legislature  than  by  any 
Legislature  that  has  sat  in  California  in  the 
PRISON  memory  of  the  present  generation.  But  the 
REFORM,  crying  shame  of  the  conditions  at  the  prisons 
was  by  no  means  wiped  out.  There  is  plenty 
yet  remaining  to  be  done.  What  California  prisons  re- 
quire above  all  things  is  that  purification  which  will  follow 
complete  publicity  of  the  methods  of  their  management. 


332  Concerning  Many  Measures 

As  in  the  case  of  the  courts,  prison-management  has 
been  left  alone  so  long  that  it  has  become  stagnant.  And 
stagnation  leads  to  corruption.  There  is  direct  evidence 
that  stories  of  unwarranted  cruelties  practiced  in  Cali- 
fornia prisons  are  well  founded,  and  there  is  some  rea- 
son to  believe  that  the  stories  of  the  meanest  of  graft, 
which  get  beyond  the  stone  walls,  have  more  founda- 
tion in  fact  than  the  reputable  citizen  who  realizes  his 
responsibility,  likes  to  believe.  All  of  which  will  con- 
tinue to  come  before  future  Legislatures  until  the  Cali- 
fornia prison  problem  has  been  solved,  and  solved  right. 

The  most  important  prison  measure  acted  upon  by 
the  1911  Legislature,  authorized  the  manufacture  at  the 
State  prisons  of  articles,  materials  and  supplies  for  the 
use  of  the  State.369 

Under  the  law  prohibiting  profitable  employment  of 
convicts,  the  State  had  been  maintaining  the  State  prisons 
at  an  expense  of  $500,000  a  year,  all  of  which,  in  the 
final  count,  is  paid  by  free-men  producers.  In  addition 
to  this,  the  State,  and  political  sub-divisions  thereof,  have 
been  expending  large  sums  annually  for  supplies  which 
could  very  well  be  manufactured  at  the  prisons.  Some 
of  these  supplies,  it  has  been  alleged,  are  actually  manu- 
factured in  Eastern  prisons.  Whether  this  is  the  fact  or 
not,  the  theory  that  the  State  must,  for  the  protection  of 
free  labor,  pay  extravagant  prices  for  supplies  which  con- 
victs supported  practically  in  idleness  could  manufacture, 
is  not  particularly  sound.  This  is  emphasized  by  the  fact 


369  Assembly  bill  888  Introduced  in  the  Lower  House  by  Gerdes. 
A  companion  bill,  Senate  bill  697,  was  Introduced  in  the  Upper 
House  by  Finn.  Governor  Johnson's  message  on  this  measure 
will  be  found  in  the  appendix. 


Concerning  Many  Measures  333 

that  under  graft  administrations  the  convicts  have  been 
employed  to  manufacture  costly  furniture  which  has  been 
distributed  free  among  the  beneficiaries  of  the  adminis- 
trations, who  have  had  no  compunction  at  grafting  off 
the  labor  of  voiceless  convicts. 

That  free  labor  might  be  protected  against  convict 
competition,  the  measure  provided  that  "all  articles,  ma- 
terials, and  supplies,  produced  or  manufactured  under  the 
provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  solely  and  exclusively  for 
public  use  and  no  article,  material,  or  supplies,  produced 
or  manufactured  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall 
ever  be  sold,  supplied,  furnished,  exchanged,  or  given 
away,  for  any  private  use  or  profit  whatever." 

Not  a  vote  was  cast  against  this  bill  in  either  Senate 
or  Assembly,  although  Senator  Wolfe,  when  it  came  up 
in  the  Senate,  asked  to  be  excused  from  voting  on  it. 
Senator  Wolfe's  request  was  granted.370 

The  employment  of  convicts  in  State  work,  it  is 
claimed,  not  only  betters  the  condition  of  the  convicts, 
but  will  save  the  State  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars 


370  The  vote  on  Assembly  bill   888  was  as  follows: 

In  the  Assembly: 

For  the  bill — Beatty,  Benedict,  Bennink,  Bliss,  Brown,  Butler, 
Callaghan,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Cronin,  Crosby,  Farwell,  Feeley,  Flint, 
Freeman,  Gaylord,  Gerdes,  Griffin  of  Modesto,  Guill,  Hall,  Hamilton, 
Harlan,  Held,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jasper,  Jones,  Joel,  Judson,  Kehoe, 
Lamb,  Lynch,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Maher,  March,  McGowen, 
Mendenhall,  Mott,  Mullally,  Nolan,  Polsley,  Preisker,  Randall,  Rim- 
linger,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco,  Ryan,  Sbragia,  Slater,  Smith, 
Stevenot,  Stuckenbruck,  Telfer,  Tibbits,  Walsh,  Wilson  and  Young 
—56. 

Against  the  bill — None. 

In  the  Senate: 

For  the  bill — Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boynton,  Bry- 
ant, Caminetti,  Cartwright,  Cassidy,  Gates,  Hans,  Hewitt,  Hurd, 
Larkins,  Martinelli,  Regan,  Rush,  Shanahan,  Stetson,  Strobridge, 
Thompson.  Walker,  and  Welch — 24. 

Against  the  bill — None. 


334  Concerning  Many  Measures 

annually,  and  will  eventually    make    the    prisons    self- 
supporting. 

The  original  "Board  of  Control"  bill,371  introduced  in 
the  Assembly  by  Benedict,  and  which  passed  that  body 

by  narrow  margin,  was  a  very  different 
BOARD  OF  measure  than  that  which  eventually  passed 
CONTROL,  the  Legislature.  There  were  undoubtedly 

weak  points  in  the  original  measure — power 
of  removal  of  members  of  the  board  by  the  appointing 
power  being  too  indefinite,  for  example — but  these  could 
have  been  strengthened  by  amendments.  The  principal 
opposition  was  not  because  of  admitted  weak  points  in 
the  bill,  but  because  of  the  strong  points.  Persons  en- 
joying profitable  trade  with  State  institutions  apparently 
did  not  want  too  close  scrutiny  of  that  trade.  The  bill 
as  it  was  finally  passed  was  not  deemed  so  strong  in  this* 
particular  as  it  was  when  it  had  originally  passed  the  As- 
sembly. But  the  measure  that  did  pass  has  certainly 
justified  itself.  The  discoveries  made  by  the  Board  of 
Control  in  the  State  Printing  office  alone  are  sufficient  to 
demonstrate  the  advantage  of  the  enactment  of  this  law. 
Outside  influences,  coming  principally  from  the  offices 

871  The  vote  by  which  the  original  Benedict  Board  of  Control 
bill  (A.  B.  515)  passed  the  Assembly  was  as  follows: 

For  the  bill — Beatty,  Beckett,  Benedict,  Bliss,  Bohnett,  Brown, 
Butler,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Cogswell,  Farwell,  Flint,  Freeman, 
Gaylord,  Gerdes,  Griffin  of  Modesto,  Guill,  Hamilton,  Hinkle,  Hin- 
shaw,  Jasper,  Joel,  Judson,  Kehoe,  Lamb,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles, 
Malone,  McDonald,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Polsley,  Prelsker,  Randall, 
Rogers  of  Alameda,  Rosendale,  Smith,  Stevenot,  Stuckenbruck, 
Sutherland,  Telfer,  Tibbits,  Wilson,  Wyllie,  and  Young — 45. 

Against  the  bill — Bishop,  Callaghan,  Coghlan,  Cronin,  Crosby, 
Cunningham,  Fitzgerald,  Griffiths,  Hall,  Harlan,  Held,  Hewitt, 
Jones,  Lynch,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco,  Maher,  March,  Mullally, 
Nolan,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco,  Ryan,  Sbragia,  Schmitt,  Slater, 
and  Williams — 25. 


Concerning  Many  Measures  335 

immediately  affected,  were  largely  responsible  for  the 
defeat  of  part  of  the  so-called  Short 

THE  SHORT     Ballot  measures.372 

BALLOT  Of  these  measures  Assembly  bill  1106, 

MEASURES.  making  the  office  of  State  Printer  ap- 
pointive instead  of  elective,  became  a 

law.     Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment  33,  making 

the  office  of  Clerk  of  the  Supreme  Court  appointive,  was 

submitted  to  the  electors  for  ratification. 


372  Governor  Johnson  in  an  interview,  which  appeared  in  the 
Sacramento  Bee  of  March  13,  stated  his  attitude  on  the  Short 
Ballot  measures  as  follows: 

"The  short  ballot  is  no  pet  scheme  of  the  Governor's  and  there 
is  no  design  to  give  to  the  present  Executive  any  increased  power. 
The  short  ballot  is  something  to  which  all  parties  in  the  State  of 
California  stand  pledged,  and  the  idea  is  the  crystallization  of  the 
wisest  experience  and  best  thought  of  the  nation. 

"The  Short  Ballot  League,  with  headquarters  in  New  York,  is 
officered  by  such  men  as  Woodrow  Wilson  and  Winston  Churchill, 
and  embraces  among  its  membership  the  ablest  political  economists 
in  both  parties  in  the  United  States. 

"The  bill  pending  before  the  Legislature  was  drawn  so  that  the 
present  Governor  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  appointment  of  the 
officers  that  may  be  appointed,  and  it  is  assured  that  no  present 
officer  shall  be  disturbed  during  the  term  for  which  he  was  elected. 

"The  newspapers  of  the  Interests  and  certain  mouthpieces  of 
theirs  have  asserted  that  the  design  of  the  measure  was  to  in- 
crease the  power  of  the  present  Executive,  and  to  take  from  The 
People  power  that  The  People  now  have.  Both  of  these  state- 
ments are,  to  say  the  least,  not  accurate. 

"It  ought  to  be  obvious  to  anybody  who  really  thinks  about 
the  situation  that  the  minor  officers  on  a  State  ticket  are  not  now 
really  chosen  by  The  People — because,  in  the  very  nature  of  things, 
The  People  can  not  know  the  candidates  or  their  qualities  for 
these  minor  offices.  The  demonstration  of  this  will  be  found  if 
any  elector  will  ask  himself  who  were  the  opposing  candidates  for 
any  of  the  minor  State  officers  in  the  last  election,  and  what  he 
knew  concerning  them. 

"With  the  attention  of  the  electorate  focused  on  one  or  more 
of  the  conspicuous  offices,  the  power  with  respect  to  these  minor 
officers  is  much  more  certainly  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  than  if 
they  elect  candidates  to  the  minor  offices  of  whom  they  know 
nothing. 

"The  literature  of  the  Short  Ballot  League  is  open  to  any  man 
who  wishes  to  inform  himself,  and  is  simple  and  convincing  in 
character.  Personally,  it  makes  no  difference  to  the  Chief  Ex- 
ecutive of  the  State  whether  this  reform  shall  be  immediately 
adopted  or  not.  As  we  progress  and  as  we  continue  to  think  on 
these  subjects,  it  is  certain  to  come,  notwithstanding  the  reac- 
tionary press  of  California." 


336  Concerning  Many  Measures 

The  other  Short  Ballot  measures,  although  adopted 
in  the  Assembly,  failed  of  adoption  in  the  Senate. 

The  first  of  these,  Assembly  Constitutional  Amend- 
ment No.  34,  made  the  office  of  State  Superintendent  of 
Public  Instruction  appointive.373  The  second,  Assembly 
Amendment  35,  added  the  offices  of  Secretary  of  State, 
Treasurer,  Surveyor-General  and  Attorney-General  to 
those  to  be  appointed  by  the  Governor.374  The  amend- 
ments, however,  in  no  way  affected  those  holding  office, 
provision  being  expressly  made  for  them  to  continue  in 
office  until  expiration  of  the  terms  for  which  they  had 
been  elected. 

These  measures  were  adopted  in  the  Assembly  with- 
out much  opposition  but  were  blocked  in  the  Senate. 

Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment  34,  making  the 

373  The  vote  by  which  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment  No. 

34  was  adopted  in  the  Assembly  was  as  follows: 

For  the  amendment — Beatty,  Beckett,  Benedict,  Bliss,  Bohnet, 
Butler,  Callaghan,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Cogswell,  Crosby,  Far- 
well,  Fitzgerald,  Flint,  Gaylord,  Gerdes,  Griffin  of  Modesto,  Guill, 
Hamilton,  Harlan,  Held,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jones,  Joel, 
Judson,  Kehoe,  Kennedy,  Lamb,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Malone, 
March,  McDonald,  McGowen,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Nolan,  Preisker, 
Randall,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco,  Rogers  of  Alameda,  Rosendale, 
Rutherford,  Slater,  Smith,  Stevenot,  Stuckenbruck,  Sutherland,  Tel- 
fer  Walker,  Walsh,  Williams,  Wilson,  Wyllie,  and  Young — 57. 

Against  the  amendment — Bennink,  Bishop,  Brown,  Cronin,  Cun- 
ningham, Denegri,  Feeley,  Freeman,  Hall,  Jasper,  Lynch,  Lypn 
of  San  Francisco,  Maher,  Mullally,  Polsley,  Rimlinger,  Sbragia, 
and  Schmltt— 18. 

374  The  vote  by  which  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment  No. 

35  was  adopted  in  the  Lower  House  was  as  follows: 

For  the  amendment— Beatty,  Beckett,  Benedict,  Bohnett,  But- 
ler Callaghan,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Coghlan,  Cogswell,  Crosby, 
Denegri  Farwell,  Feeley,  Fitzgerald,  Flint,  Gaylord,  Gerdes,  Guill, 
Hamilton,  Harlan,  Held,  Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Joel,  Judson, 
Kehoe  Kennedy,  Lamb,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco,  Malone,  McDonald, 
McGowen,  Mott,  Preisker,  Randall,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco, 
Rogers  of  Alameda,  Rosendale,  Ryan,  Sbragia,  Slater,  Smith,  Steve- 
not, Stuckenbruck,  Sutherland,  Telfer,  Tibbits,  Walker,  Walsh, 
Williams,  Wilson,  Wyllie,  and  Young — 56. 

Against  the  amendment — Bennink,  Bishop,  Brown,  Cronin,  Free- 
man, Hall,  Hayes,  Jasper,  Jones,  Lynch,  Maher,  March,  Menden- 
hall, Polsley,  and  Schmitt— 15. 


Concerning  Many  Measures  337 

office  of  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  appointive, 
went  to  the  Senate  Committee  on  Education.  The 
committee  reported  it  out  with  the  recommendation  that 
it  be  adopted.  But  so  persistent  was  the  opposition  to 
this  amendment  that  it  was  not  brought  to  vote  in  the 
upper  house.375 

The  same  disposition  was  made  of  the  proposed 
amendment  to  make  the  offices  of  Secretary  of  State, 
Treasurer,  Surveyor-General  and  Attorney-General  ap- 
pointive, although  in  a  somewhat  different  way.  Senator 
Strobridge  had  introduced  this  amendment  in  the  Upper 
House,  and  before  the  Assembly  had  adopted  the  com- 
panion measure,  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  had 
acted  upon  the  amendment  introduced  by  Strobridge 
and  acted  upon  it  adversely. 

The  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  had  amended  the 
Strobridge  measure  by  eliminating  the  office  of  Attor- 
ney-General from  its  provisions,  leaving  that  office  elect- 
ive. With  this  amendment,  by  an  8  to  10  vote  376  the 
Judiciary  Committee  sent  the  measure  back  to  the 
Senate  with  the  recommendation  that  it  be  not  adopted. 

Within  a  week  after  the  Judiciary  Committee's  ad- 
verse action,  the  companion  amendment  was  adopted  in 

375  The    chief   objection   to   making   the  office    of   State   Super- 
intendent  of   Public    Instruction   appointive,    had   its   basis    in    the 
growing  jealousy  of  the  encroachment  of  the  State  University  on 
the   Public    School    system.     Objection   was   raised    to    the   amend- 
ment that  an  appointed  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction 
would   be   likely  to   be  dominated   entirely  by  the  University,   and 
thus  be  out  of  sympathy  and  touch  with  the  common  school  system. 

376  The  vote  of  the   Senate  Judiciary  Committee  on  the  Stro- 
bridge  Short   Ballot    amendment   was    as   follows: 

For  the  amendment — Burnett,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Gates, 
Hewitt,  Roseberry,  Thompson,  Tyrrell — 8. 

Against  the  amendment — Caminetti,  Curtin,  Estudillo,  Juilliard, 
Larkins,  Martinelli,  Shanahan,  Wolfe,  Wright,  Stetson — 10. 


338  Concerning  Many  Measures 

the  Assembly.  But  this  did  not  strengthen  the  Senate 
supporters  of  the  reform  so  much  as  had  been  expected. 
To  be  sure,  Senator  Stetson,  who  had  voted  against  the 
Strobridge  measure  in  Committee,  announced  that  he 
would  support  it  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate.  But  other 
Progressives  were  open  in  their  opposition.  Senator 
Larkins,  for  example,  held  that  so  long  as  the  Secretary 
of  State  remained  a  member  of  the  State  Board  of  Ex- 
aminers it  would  be  unwise  to  make  the  office  appointive, 
lest  the  Secretary  of  State,  in  his  capacity  as  a  member 
of  the  Board  of  Examiners  be  dominated  by  the  Gov- 
ernor. 

Repeated  canvass  of  the  Senate  did  not  show  more 
than  twenty-five  members  as  favoring  the  amendment. 
As  a  vote  of  twenty-seven  was  required  to  submit  it  to 
The  People  for  ratification,  the  measure  was  not  brought 
to  vote. 

This  reform  passed  into  the  list  of  unfinished  business 
to  be  taken  up  at  future  sessions. 

Up  to  the  1911  session  the  State  capitol  and  grounds 

had  been  in  charge  of  a  Board  of  Capitol  Commissioners, 

consisting  of  the  Governor,  State 

STATE  Treasurer  and  Secretary  of  State. 

CAPITOL  The  custom  usually  followed  was 

SUPERINTENDENT,  for  the  three  officials  to  "divide 
the  patronage,"  and  then  let  na- 
ture and  politics  take  their  course. 

The  usual  course  was  for  the  three  groups  of  ap- 
pointees to  develop  infinite  scorn  of  one  another  to  the 
end  that  care  of  the  State  property  was  neglected.  To 
bring  these  conditions  to  an  end,  a  measure  was  intro- 


Concerning  Many  Measures  339 

duced,  creating  the  office  of  Superintendent  of  the  State 
Capitol  building  and  grounds.377 

This  measure  was  strongly  opposed  by  Secretary  of 
State  Jordan,  but  eventually  passed  both  Houses,  and 
was  approved  by  the  Governor. 

The  so-called  Commonwealth  Club  bills,  for  the  re- 
form of  the  criminal  procedure,  which  were  considered 
at  the  1911  session,  were  not  so  far 
REFORM  OF  reaching  as  the  measures  prepared  by 
CRIMINAL  that  organization  for  consideration  at 
PROCEDURE,  the  session  of  1909,  none  of  which  were 
enacted.878 

The  1911  measures  in  the  main  became  laws.  The 
most  important  among  them  dealt  with  Grand  Juries 
and  Grand  Jurors. 

Under  the  measures  which  became  laws  it  will  be 
impossible  hereafter  to  put  Grand  Jurors  on  trial  as  was 
done  in  the  San  Francisco  graft  cases.  Hereafter,  too, 

377  Assembly    bill    1183,    introduced    by    Wyllie.     The    bill    was 
passed  by  the  following  vote: 

In  the  Assembly: 

For  the  bill — Beatty,  Beckett,  Benedict,  Bliss,  Bohnett,  Brown, 
Butler,  Callaghan,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Cogswell,  Crosby, 
Denegri,  Farwell,  Feeley,  Flint,  Gerdes,  Griffln  of  Modesto,  Guill, 
Harlan,  Hayes,  Held,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jasper,  Joel,  Judson,  Kehoe, 
Kennedy,  Lamb,  Lynch,  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  Lyon  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, Maher,  Malone,  McDonald,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Nolan,  Polsley, 
Preisker,  Randall,  Rodgers  of  San  Francisco,  Rosendale,  Rutherford, 
Ryan,  Sbragia,  Slater,  Smith,  Stevenot,  Stuckenbruck,  Sutherland, 
Telfer,  Tibbits,  Wilson,  Wyllie,  Young,  and  Mr.  Speaker — 59. 

Against  the  bill — Bennink,  Bishop,  Coghlan,  Cronin,  Freeman, 
Gaylord,  Griffiths,  Hamilton,  Mullally,  and  Schmitt— 10. 

In   the   Senate: 

For  the  bill — Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boynton, 
Bryant,  Burnett,  Caminettl,  Campbell,  Curtin,  Cutten,  Estudillo, 
Gates,  Hewitt,  Holohan,  Hurd,  Juilliard,  Lewis,  Regan,  Roseberry, 
Rush,  Shanahan,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  Walker, 
and  Welch — 30. 

Against  the  bill — Cassidy,  Martinelli,  Sanford,  Wolfe,  and 
Wright— 5. 

378  See    "Story    of   the   California    Legislature    of    1909,"    Chap- 
ter XV. 


34°  Concerning  Many  Measures 

an  indictment  or  information  may  be  amended  by  the 
district  attorney  without  leave  of  the  court  at  any  time 
before  the  defendant  pleads ;  and  at  any  time  thereafter 
in  the  discretion  of  the  court  where  it  can  be  done  with- 
out prejudice  to  the  substantial  rights  of  the  defendant. 

Another  measure  takes  from  a  witness  his  privilege 
of  refusing  to  give  testimony  on  the  grounds  that  it  may 
incriminate  him.  The  witness  is  safe-guarded,  how- 
ever, by  a  provision  that  he  shall  not  be  liable  thereafter 
to  prosecution  nor  punishment  with  respect  to  the  offense 
of  which  such  testimony  is  given. 

Unfortunately,  measures  for  simplification  of  prose- 
cutions in  criminal  cases  were  hampered  by  opposition 
of  Organized  Labor,  whose  leaders  feared  that  the  pro- 
posed changes  would  be  made  subject  of  abuse  in  cases 
growing  out  of  disputes  between  labor  and  capital. 

Thus  Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  No.  13, 
which  provided  that  nine — or,  as  finally  amended,  ten — 
jurors,  may  render  a  verdict  in  criminal  cases,  except 
where  the  penalty  is  death  or  life  imprisonment,  was 
refused  adoption,379  largely  on  account  of  the  opposition 
of  labor  representatives.380 

Provision  was  made,  in  Senate  Amendment  26,  for 

379  The  vote  on  Senate  amendment  13  was  as  follows: 

In   the   Senate: 

For  the  amendment — Avey,  Bell,  Bills,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boynton, 
Burnett,  Camlnetti,  Campbell,  Cartwrlght,  Curtin,  Cutten,  Estu- 
dillo,  Gates,  Hewitt,  Holohan,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Martlnelll,  Regan, 
Roseberry,  Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Stetson,  Strobrldge,  Thomp- 
son, Walker,  and  Welch — 29. 

Against  the  amendment — Beban,  Bryant,  Cassldy,  Finn,  Hurd, 
Juilllard,  Tyrrell,  Wolfe,  and  Wright— 9. 

In  the  Assembly: 

For  the  amendment — Beatty,  Beckett,  Bennink,  Bliss,  Bohnett, 
Butler,  Cattell,  Chandler,  Clark,  Cogswell,  Farwell,  Flint,  Gaylord, 
Gerdes,  Griffin  of  Modesto,  Griffiths,  Guill,  Hamilton,  Harlan,  Held, 
Hewitt,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Joel,  Judson,  Kehoe,  Lamb,  Lyon  of  Los 
Angeles,  Malone,  Mendenhall,  Mott,  Polsley,  Preisker,  Randall, 


Concerning  Many  Measures  341 

an  ending  of  the  release  of  convicted  criminals  because 
of  trivial  technicalities.  This  amendment  provides  that 
"no  judgment  shall  be  set  aside,  or  new  trial  granted  in 
any  criminal  case  on  the  ground  of  misdirection  of  the 
jury  or  the  improper  admission  or  rejection  of  evidence, 
or  for  error  as  to  any  matter  of  pleading  or  procedure, 
unless,  after  an  examination  of  the  entire  cause  including 
the  evidence,  the  court  shall  be  of  the  opinion  that  the 
error  complained  of  has  resulted  in  a  miscarriage  of 
justice." 

This  amendment  was  adopted  by  both  Houses,  and 
submitted  to  The  People  for  ratification.381 

Rogers  of  Alameda,  Rutherford,  Slater,  Stevenot,  Sutherland,  Tib- 
bits,  Williams,  Wilson,  Wyllie,  and  Young — 44. 

Against  the  amendment — Bishop,  Brown,  Callaghan,  Coghlan, 
Cronin,  Cunningham,  Denegri,  Feeley,  Fitzgerald,  Freeman,  Hall, 
Hayes,  Jasper,  Jones,  Kennedy,  Lynch,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco, 
Maher,  March,  McDonald,  Mullally,  Nolan,  Rimlinger,  Rodgers  of 
San  Francisco,  Rosendale,  Ryan,  Sbragia,  Schmitt,  Smith,  Stucken- 
bruck,  Telfer,  and  Walker — 32. 

380  Of  this  amendment  the  labor  representatives  who  attended 
the  1911   session  of  the  Legislature  in   their  report,   issued  by  the 
California    State    Federation    of    Labor,    said: 

"This  measure  (Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  13),  passed 
by  the  Senate,  but  we  were  successful  in  having  it  defeated  in 
the  Assembly.  This  measure  was  vigorously  supported  by  anti- 
labor  men  throughout  the  State." 

381  The    vote    by   which    Senate    Constitutional    Amendment    26 
was  adopted  was  as  follows: 

In   the  Senate: 

For  the  amendment — Avey,  Beban,  Bell,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boyn- 
ton,  Bryant,  Burnett,  Campbell,  Cassidy,  Curtin,  Estudillo,  Gates, 
Hans,  Hare,  Hewitt,  Holohan,  Hurd,  Juilliard,  Larkins,  Lewis, 
Martinelli,  Regan,  Roseberry,  Rush,  Sanford,  Shanahan,  Stetson, 
Strobridge,  Thompson,  Tyrrell,  Walker,  Welch,  and  Wright — 34. 

Against  the  amendment — None. 

In   the  Assembly: 

For  the  amendment — Beatty,  Beckett,  Bennink,  Bohnett,  Brown, 
Butler,  Caliagnan,  Cattell,  Clark,  Coghlan,  Cogswell,  Cronin, 
Crosby,  Cunningham,  Denegri,  Farwell.  Feeley,  Freeman,  Gaylord, 
Gerdes,  Griffin  of  Modesto,  Guill,  Hamilton,  Hayes,  Hewitt,  Jasper, 
Jones,  Joel,  Judson,  Kehoe,  Kennedy,  Lamb,  Lynch,  Lyon  of  Los 
Angeles,  Lyon  of  San  Francisco,  Malone,  McDonald,  Mendenhall, 
Mott,  Nolan,  Preisker,  Randall,  Rimlinger,  Rodgers  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, Rosendale,  Rutherford,  Ryan,  Slater,  Smith,  Stevenot,  Suth- 
erland, Tibbits,  Wilson,  Wyllie,  and  Young — 55. 

Against  the  amendment — None. 


342  Concerning  Many  Measures 

Anti-Japanese    measures    were    introduced    in    each 
House,  as  in  1907  and  1909.    By  and  large  the  measures 
were  the  same  as  those  introduced  at  pre- 
THE  vious  sessions,  but,  as  at  previous  sessions, 

JAPANESE    not  one  of  the  measures  became  a  law. 
BILLS.  The  principal  contest  was  over  the  so- 

called  Anti-alien  land  bill.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  measure  was  not  an  anti-alien  land  bill,  strict- 
ly speaking,  but  an  anti-Asiatic  measure.  Instead  of 
providing  that  no  alien  shall  hold  land  in  California,  it 
provided  that  "no  alien  who  is  not  eligible  to  citizen- 
ship" shall  hold  real  property  in  the  State. 

The  bill  passed  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  29  to  3.382 
In  the  Assembly  the  measure  was  referred  to  the  Judi- 
ciary Committee.  It  never  got  beyond  that  body.383 

The  Japanese  treaty  came  before  the  Federal  Senate 
for  ratification  while  the  Legislature  was  in  session. 
That  the  treaty  did  not  specifically  make  provision  for 
the  exclusion  of  Japanese  laborers  led  to  the  introduc- 

382  The  vote  by  which  the  "Anti-Alien  Land  bill"  (Committee 
Substitute  for  Senate  bills  2,  24,  167  and  1074)  passed  the  Senate 
was  as  follows: 

For  the  bill — Avey,  Beban,  Birdsall,  Black,  Boynton,  Bryant, 
Burnett,  Caminetti,  Campbell,  Cartwright,  Cassidy,  Curtin,  Finn, 
Hans,  Hare,  Holohan,  Juilliard,  Larkins,  Lewis,  Regan,  Roseberry, 
Sanford,  Shanahan,  Stetson,  Strobridge,  Tyrrell,  Walker,  Welch, 
and  Wolfe— 29. 

Against  the  bill — Bell,  Thompson,  and  Wright — 3. 

883  The  Panama- Pacific  Exposition  Company  took  active  part 
in  the  killing  of  the  bill.  The  following  telegram  was  received  by 
many  members  of  the  Assembly: 

"On  behalf  of  the  Panama-Pacific  International  Exposition 
Company  we  emphatically  protest  against  the  passage  of  the 
Alien  Land  Law  Senate  bill  as  it  is  at  present  drawn,  believing 
that  the  passage  of  this  bill  would  work  great  injury  to  the 
exposition  and  we  respectfully  ask  your  best  efforts  to  defeat  it. 

"JAMES    McNAB, 

"Chairman  Cal.  Legislative  Committee." 

Curiously  enough,  however,  Assemblymen,  who  were  leaders  for 
Panama- Pacific  policies  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly,  labored  to 
force  the  An ti- Alien  Land  bill  to  a  vote  and  passage. 


Concerning  Many  Measures  343 

tion  of  resolutions  demanding  that  such  restriction  be 
provided.  But  the  resolutions  were  tossed  from  com- 
mittee to  Senate,  or  to  Assembly,  floor,  as  the  case  might 
be,  and  got  nowhere.  In  the  meantime,  President  Taft 
informed  Governor  Johnson  and  Senator  Wright,  Chair- 
man of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Federal  Relations,  that 
the  United  States  had  the  assurance  of  the  Japanese 
Government  that  the  then  arrangements  with  reference 
to  labor  immigration  to  the  United  States  will  be  main- 
tained.384 

"/  know  nothing  of  the  treaty,"  said  Governor  John- 
son in  commenting  on  the  President's  assurances.  "The 
matter  in  which  we  of  this  State  are  interested  is  exclu- 
sion. The  question  is,  therefore,  Do  we  get  exclusion? 
The  President  of  the  United  States  says  that  we  do.  And 
that  ends  the  matter  so  far  as  I  am  concerned."*** 

An  unlooked-for  feature  of  the  agitation  over  the 
Japanese  matters  was  a  statement  sent  members  of  the 
Legislature  by  the  Asiatic  Exclusion  League  that  anti- 

384  President  Taft's  telegram  to  Governor  Johnson  on  this  point 
read  as  follows: 

"The  White  House,  Washington,   D.  C.,   23-11. 
"Hon.  Hiram  W.  Johnson,   Sacramento,  Cal. : 

"Telegram  received.  If  treaty  is  ratified  as  proposed  by  me, 
arrangements  and  assurances  that  have  heretofore  existed  in 
respect  to  Japanese  immigration  will  more  certainly  secure  ex- 
isting status  than  the  old  treaty  and  you  are  at  liberty  to  say 
so  on  my  authority.  WM.  TAFT." 

The  telegram  to  Senator  Wright  was  as  follows: 

"The  White  House,  Washington,  D.  C.,  Feb.  23,  1911. 
"Leroy    A.    Wright,    Chairman    Federal    Relations    Committee, 

Sacramento,  Calif. : 

"Replying  to  your  message  of  the  twenty-second  relative 
to  the  new  Japanese  treaty.  This  Government  has  assurance 
of  Japanese  Government  that  present  arrangement  with  refer- 
ence to  labor  immigration  to  the  United  States  will  be  effect- 
ively maintained  and  this  fully  meets  the  condition  suggested 
in  your  telegram.  WM.  H.  TAFT." 

385  Interview  in  The  Sacramento  Bee,  Feb.  24,  1911. 


344  Concerning  Many  Measures 

Asiatic  measures  offered  were  not  conducive  to  the  final 
enactment  of  effective  and  permanent  Asiatic  exclusion 
legislation.386  The  League  and  its  officers  were  roundly 
scored  for  their  action.  It  is  not  probable,  however, 
that  the  stand  taken  by  the  League  affected  the  final 
outcome. 

386  The  communication  was  in  full  as  follows: 
"Hon.    Mr.    Hewitt,    Speaker   of   the    Assembly,    State    Capitol, 

Sacramento,   Cal. : 

"The  following  is  a  copy  of  lettergram  sent  under  current 
date: 
"Senator  Thos.  Finn.,  Sacramento,  Cal.: 

"The  executive  board  of  the  Asiatic  Exclusion  League  regrets 
that  regardless  of  previous  communication  on  the  subject  we 
have  not  been  afforded  an  opportunity  to  examine  the  anti- 
alien  Asiatic  bills  which  you  introduced  in  the  Senate  Friday. 
It  is  the  sense  of  the  board  that  such  bills  as  these  at  the 
present  time  are  not  conducive  to  the  final  enactment  of  effect- 
ive and  permanent  Asiatic  exclusion  legislation  and  which  only 
can  be  had  through  Act  of  Congress.  The  school  segregation 
questio_n  has  for  some  years  been  fairly  satisfactorily  settled 
and  alien  land  tenure  is  judiciously  and  sanely  dealt  with  by 
this  league  and  the  State  labor  bodies.  We  respectfully  request 
that  you  proceed  cautiously  in  this  matter,  as  pressing  meas- 
ures of  this  kind  now  would  mean  irreparable  injury  to  the 
exclusion  cause. 

"O.  A.  TVEITMOE,  President. 
"A.  E.  YOELL,   Secretary-Treasurer." 

Assemblyman  Polsley,  because  of  this  change  of  front,  took 
occasion,  when  requested  by  League  officials  to  vote-  for  other  bills, 
to  send  the  following  sharp  answer: 

"Circular  in  reference  to  number  of  legislative  bills  received. 
While  they  will  receive  due  consideration,  I  consider  your  back- 
down in  reference  to  Japanese  legislation  does  not  entitle  you 
to  my  consideration  so  far  as  your  interest  "for  the  good  of 
laboring  men  is  concerned.  Yours  truly, 

"HARRY  POLSLEY." 

In  view  of  the  League's  letter  to  the  members  of  the  Legislature, 
the  following  Associated  Press  dispatch,  printed  throughout  the 
State  on  April  17,  1911,  is  remarkable,  to  say  the  least: 

"SAN  FRANCISCO,  April  16. — A  report  on  Japanese  labor 
conditions,  read  to-day  before  a  meeting  of  the  Asiatic  Exclu- 
sion League  here  by  Secretary  Yoell  of  the  league,  criticized 
the  State  Legislature  for  its  failure  to  pass  the  Alien  Land  bill. 
"  'The  worst  thing  that  the  State  Legislature  did  was  to 
defeat  the  Alien  Land  bill,'  says  the  report.  'Both  parties  had 
proclaimed  their  love  for  the  American  workingman,  and  a 
majority  of  all  candidates  to  the  Legislature  sent  letters  to  this 
league,  stating  that  they  would  support  an  Alien  Land  bill, 
and  would  not  bow  down  to  the  big  stick."  " 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 
CONCLUSION 

Even  if  Successful  at  the  Polls,  and  Again  in  Control  of 
Senate  and  Assembly,  the  Old-Time  Machine  Could 
Not  Wipe  Out  All  the  Good  Accomplished  at  the 
Session  of  1911. 

The  San  Francisco  Call,  in  its  issue  of  March  20, 
referred  to  the  1911  Legislature,  then  in  session,  as  "The 
Legislature  of  a  Thousand  Freaks."  The  San  Francisco 
Chronicle,  while  frankly  opposed  to  much  of  the  legisla- 
tion enacted,  admitted  that  "whether  one  agrees  or  dis- 
agrees with  the  new  laws  enacted  by  the  most  indus- 
trious Legislature  in  our  history,  nobody  will  deny  the 
conscientiousness  and  industry  of  its  members,  and  few 
will  doubt  that  in  the  main  the  new  laws  are  excellent." 

But  aside  from  condemnation  from  such  publications 
as  The  San  Francisco  Call,  and  faint  praise  from  the 
more  tactful  Chronicle,  this  may  be  said  of  the  California 
Legislature  of  191 1 : 

(1)  Platform  pledges  to  The  People  were  observed 
and  carried  out. 

(2)  Generally   speaking,    every   problem    presented 
was  met,  by  a  majority  of  the  members,  fearlessly,  re- 
gardless of  political  consequences  to  the  individual. 


346  Conclusion 

(3)  The   legislation   enacted   brought   the   govern- 
ment of  the  State,  and  of  its  political  subdivisions,  closer 
to  The  People. 

(4)  The  grip  of  monopoly-controlled  politicians  was 
broken,  and  California  made  a  better  and  safer  State,  a 
more  attractive  State,  for  legitimate  investor  and  home- 
seeker  than  it  had  been  before  the  Legislature  convened. 

(5)  No  scandal  marred  the  proceedings  of  the  ses- 
sion.    There  was  no  large  grafting,  such  as  that  prac- 
ticed by  representatives  of  the  machine  at  former  sessions 
when  machine  representatives  would  secure  stock  in  a 
given  corporation  and  employ  the  powerful  influence  of 
the  Southern  Pacific-backed  machine  to  favor  that  cor- 
poration.   There  was  no  small  grafting,  such  as  stirred  up 
the  tempest  in  the  tea-pot  at  the  1905  session,  when  four 
Senators  were  trapped  in  a  $400  bribery  transaction  and 
expelled.387    Undoubtedly  the  interests  would  have  been 
willing  to  expend  large  sums  to  defeat  some  of  the  Pro- 
gressive measures  that  went  on  the  statute  books,  but  a 
jump  from  the  dome  of  the  State  Capitol  would  have 
been  quite  as  secret  and  safe  of  execution  as  would  have 
been  the  attempted  use  of  money  at  the  1911  session. 

The  191 1  session  of  the  Legislature  was  a  bad  session 
for  bribe-givers  and  bribe-takers. 

(6)  Petty  graft,  which  at  former  sessions  ran  into 
thousands  of  dollars,  was  eliminated.     Dealers  were  al- 

387  One  of  the  most  amusing  incidents  of  the  California  Legis- 
lature was  the  condemnation  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  (1905)  of 
the  four  members  who  had  been  "taken  with  the  goods  on  them." 
Senators  who  were  proud  of  their  connection  with  the  organization, 
who  habitually  voted  against  good  measures  and  for  bad  measures, 
voiced  their  utter  condemnation  of  the  four  mere  bribe-takers.  But 
the  condemned  ones,  being  mere  petty  grafters,  were  not  so 
menacing  to  the  State  as  were  some  of  those  who  condemned. 


Conclusion  347 

lowed  for  goods  they  delivered,  not  for  what  they  saw  fit 
to  charge.888 

The  most  important  departure  of  the  session  was  in 
the  change  of  policy  in  the  disposition  of  State  tide 
lands.  These  lands  will,  with  the  opening  of  the  Panama 
Canal,  be  priceless.  The  best  development  of  the  State 
requires  that  the  water-fronts  be  kept  free  from  mon- 
opoly control.  If  the  municipalities  adjacent  to  these 
water-front  properties  can  best  safeguard  them  for  the 
whole  people,  then  the  change  of  policy  is  for  the  good  of 
the  State.  But  if  a  mistake  has  been  made,  and  it  be  not 
corrected,  then  the  next  generation  will  charge  a  costly 
blunder  to  the  progressive  Legislature  of  1911. 

But  the  good  that  the  191 1  Legislature  did  is  destined 
to  be  felt  for  many  years  to  come.  Even  though  the  ma- 
chine were  to  secure  control  of  the  next  Legislature,  it 
could  not  wipe  out  the  reforms  that  have  been  secured 
through  constitutional  amendment.  Nor  is  it  probable 
that  the  machine  would  dare  hamper  the  Australian  ballot 
with  party  circle  and  party  column,  which  the  1911  Legis- 
lature wiped  out.  The  People,  now  they  have  been  given 
the  privilege  of  a  State-wide  nominating  vote  for  United 


388  This  was  amusingly  Illustrated  when  a  bill  for  $56  for  ice 
furnished  the  Assembly  was  cut  by  the  Committee  on  Contingent 
Expenses  to  $19.20,  the  regular  price  value  of  the  ice  actually  re- 
ceived. The  ice-man  sent  the  following  letter  to  a  member  of 
the  committee: 

"Dear  Ed. — I  don't  blame  the  chairman  having  a  kick  com- 
ing as  the  economical  streak  must  be  working  overtime,  as 
the  Assembly  has  only  used  1920  pounds  for  the  forty- two  days, 
not  quite  an  average  of  fifty  pounds  a  day,  whereas  two  years 
ago  never  less  than  150  pounds  a  day  was  used. 

"I  will  take  my  hat  off  to  the  chairman,  as  I  did  not  look 
over  the  account,  supposing  the  same  quantity  was  being  used 
as  in  the  past.  Yours, 

"IKE,   THE   ICEMAN." 


348  Conclusion 

States  Senator,  will  never  consent  that  this  power  shall 
be  taken  away. 

All  this,  and  more,  The  People  of  California  owe  to 
the  1911  Legislature. 

Up  to  the  session  of  the  1911  Legislature,  representa- 
tive government  had,  for  a  generation,  been  practically 
unknown  in  California.  But  with  The  People  armed,  as 
they  now  are,  with  the  Initiative,  the  Referendum  and 
the  Recall,  no  government  that  is  not  representative,  no 
government  that  fails  to  respond  to  the  will  of  The 
People,  need  be  tolerated. 


APPENDIX 


INAUGURAL  ADDRESS  OF  GOVERNOR 
HIRAM  W.  JOHNSON. 

To  the  Senate  and  Assembly  of  the  State  of  California: 

In  the  political  struggle  from  which  we  have  just 
emerged  the  issue  was  so  sharply  defined  and  so  thoroughly 
understood  that  it  may  be  superfluous  for  me  to  indicate 
the  policy  which  in  the  ensuing  four  years  will  control  the 
executive  department  of  the  State  of  California,  The  elec- 
torate has  rendered  its  decision,  a  decision  conclusive  upon 
all  its  representatives;  but  while  we  know  the  sort  of 
government  demanded  and  decreed  by  the  people,  it  may 
not  be  amiss  to  suggest  the  means  by  which  that  kind  of 
administration  may  be  attained  and  continued.  "Successful 
and  permanent  government  must  rest  primarily  on  recog- 
nition of  the  rights  of  men  and  the  absolute  sovereignty 
of  the  people.  Upon  these  principles  is  based  the  super- 
structure of  our  republic.  Their  maintenance  and  perpetu- 
ation measure  the  life  of  the  republic."  It  was  upon  this 
theory  that  we  undertook  originally  to  go  to  the  people;  it 
was  this  theory  that  was  adopted  by  the  people;  it  is  upon 
this  theory,  so  far  as  your  Executive  is  concerned,  that  this 
government  shall  be  henceforth  conducted.  The  problem 

first  presented  to  us,  therefore,  is  how  best 

To  Make  Public     can  the  government  be  made  responsive  to 

Service  Responsive  the    people   alone?     Matters    of   material 

to  the  People      prosperity  and  advancement,  conservation 

of  resources,  development  of  that  which 
lies  within  our  borders,  are  easy  of  solution  when  once  the 
primal  question  of  the  people's  rule  shall  have  been  deter- 
mined. In  some  form  or  other  nearly  every  governmental 
problem  that  involves  the  health,  the  happiness,  or  the  pros- 
perity of  the  State  has  arisen,  because  some  private  interest 
has  intervened  or  has  sought  for  its  own  gain  to  exploit  either 
the  resources  or  the  politics  of  the  State.  I  take  it,  therefore, 


that  the  first  duty  that  is  mine  to  perform  is  to  eliminate  every 
private  interest  from  the  government,  and  to  make  the  public 
service  of  the  State  responsive  solely  to  the  people.  The  State 
is  entitled  to  the  highest  efficiency  in  our  public  service,  and 
that  efficiency  I  shall  endeavor  at  all  times  to  give.  It  is  ob- 
vious that  the  requisite  degree  of  efficiency  can  not  be  attained 
where  any  public  servant  divides  his  allegiance  between  the 
public  service  and  a  private  interest.  Where  under  our  political 
system,  therefore,  there  exists  any  appointee  of  the  Governor 
who  is  representing  a  political  machine  or  a  corporation  that 
has  been  devoting  itself  in  part  to  our  politics,  that  appointee 
will  be  replaced  by  an  official  who  will  devote  himself  ex- 
clusively and  solely  to  the  service  of  the  State.  In  this 
fashion,  so  far  as  it  can  be  accomplished  by  the  Executive, 
the  government  of  California  shall  be  made  a  government 
for  the  people.  If  there  are  in  existence  now  any  appointees 
who  represent  the  system  of  politics  which  has  been  in 
vogue  in  this  State  for  many  years  and  who  have  divided 
their  allegiance  between  the  State  and  a  private  interest  of 
any  sort,  or  if  there  be  in  existence  any  Commission  of  like 
character,  and  I  can  not  alone  deal  with  either,  then  I  shall 
look  to  the  Legislature  to  aid  me  in  my  design  to  eliminate 
special  interests  from  the  government  and  to  require  from 
our  officials  the  highest  efficiency  and  an  undivided  al- 
legiance; and  I  shall  expect  such  legislative  action  to  be 
taken  as  may  be  necessary  to  accomplish  the  desired  result. 

In  pursuing  this  policy,  so  long  as  we  deal 
only  with  the  ward-heeler  who  holds  a  petty  No  Partiality 
official  position  as  a  reward  for  political  service,         to  Be 
or  with  the  weak  and  vacillating  small   poli-         Shown 
tician,  we  will  have  the  support  and  indeed  the 
commendation  of  all  the  people  and  all  the  press;  but  as  we 
go  a  little  higher,  with  firm  resolve  and  absolute  determina- 
tion we  will  begin  to  meet  with  opposition  here  and  there 
to   our   plan,   and   various   arguments,   apparently   put   forth 
in  good  faith  for  the  retention  of  this  official  or  that,  will 
make  their  appearance;  and  finally  when  we  reach,  if  we  do, 
some  representative,  not  only  of  the  former  political  master 


of  this  State,  the  Southern  Pacific  Company,  but  an  apostle 
of  "big  business"  as  well  (that  business  that  believes  all 
government  is  a  mere  thing  for  exploitation  and  private 
gain),  a  storm  of  indignation  will  meet  us  from  all  of  those 
who  have  been  parties  to  or  partisans  of  the  political  system 
that  has  obtained  in  the  past;  and  particularly  that  portion 
of  the  public  press  which  is  responsive  to  private  interest 
and  believes  that  private  interest  should  control  our  govern- 
ment, will,  in  mock  indignation  and  pretended  horror,  cry 
out  against  the  desecration  of  the  public  service  and  the 
awful  politics  which  would  permit  the  people  to  rule.  Much, 
doubtless,  will  be  said  of  destructiveness  of  abuse  of  power, 
of  anarchistic  tendencies  and  the  like,  and  of  the  astounding 
and  incomparable  fitness  of  him  who  represents  "big  busi- 
ness" to  represent  us  all.  And  in  the  end  it  may  be  that 
the  very  plan,  simple  and  directj  to  which  we  have  set 
ourselves  in  this  administration  will  be  wholly  distorted 
and  will  be  understood  only  by  those  who,  with  singleness 
of  purpose,  are  working  for  a  return  of  popular  government 
in  California. 

It  matters  not  how  powerful  the  individual  may  be  who 
is  in  the  .service  of  the  State,  nor  how  much  wealth  and  in- 
fluence there  may  be  behind  him,  nor  how  strenuously  he 
may  be  supported  by  "big  business"  and  by  all  that  has  been 
heretofore  powerful  and  omnipotent  in  our  political  life,  if 
he  be  the  representative  of  Southern  Pacific  politics,  or  if 
he  be  one  of  that  class  who  divides  his  allegiance  to  the 
State  with  a  private  interest  and  thus  impairs  his  efficiency, 
I  shall  attack  him  the  more  readily  because  of  his  power 
and  his  influence  and  the  wealth  behind  him,  and  I  shall 
strive  in  respect  to  such  a  one  in  exactly  the  same  way  as 
with  his  weaker  and  less  powerful  accomplices.  I  prefer,  as 
less  dangerous  to  society,  the  political  thug  of  the  water 
front  to  the  smugly  respectable  individual  in  broadcloth  of 
pretended  respectability  who  from  ambush  employs  and  uses 
that  thug  for  his  selfish  political  gain. 

In  the  consummation  of  our  design  at  last  to  have  the 
people  rule,  we  shall  go  forward,  without  malice  or  hatred. 


not  in  animosity  or  personal  hostility,  but  calmly,  coolly, 
pertinaciously,  unswervingly  and  with  absolute  determina- 
tion, until  the  public  service  reflects  only  the  public  good  and 
represents  alone  the  people. 

When,  with  your  assistance,  California's  gov- 

Initiative,    ernment  shall  be   composed  only  of  those  who 
Referendum  recognize  one  sovereign  and  master,  the  people, 

and  Recall  then  is  presented  to  us  the  question  of,  How  best 
can  we  arm  the  people  to  protect  themselves 
hereafter?  If  we  can  give  to  the  people  the  means  by 
which  they  may  accomplish  such  other  reforms  as  they 
desire,  the  means  as  well  by  which  they  may  prevent  the 
misuse  of  the  power  temporarily  centralized  in  the  Legisla- 
ture and  an  admonitory  and  precautionary  measure  which 
will  ever  be  present  before  weak  officials,  and  the  existence 
of  which  will  prevent  the  necessity  for  its  use,  then  all  that 
lies  in  our  power  will  have  been  done  in  the  direction  of 
safeguarding  the  future  and  for  the  perpetuation  of  the 
theory  upon  which  we  ourselves  shall  conduct  this  govern- 
ment. This  means  for  accomplishing  other  reforms  has  been 
designated  the  "Initiative  and  the  referendum,"  and  the  pre- 
cautionary measure  by  which  a  recalcitrant  official  can  be 
removed  is  designated  the  "Recall."  And  while  I  do  not  by 
any  means  believe  the  initiative,  the  referendum,  and  the 
recall  are  the  panacea  for  all  our  political  ills,  yet  they  do 
give  to  the  electorate  the  power  of  action  when  desired, 
and  they  do  place  in  the  hands  of  the  people  the  means  by 
which  they  may  protect  themselves.  I  recommend  to  you, 
therefore,  and  I  most  strongly  urge,  that  the  first  step  in 
our  design  to  preserve  and  perpetuate  popular  government 
shall  be  the  adoption  of  the  initiative,  the  referendum,  and 
the  recall.  I  recognize  that  this  must  be  accomplished,  so 
far  as  the  State  is  concerned,  by  constitutional  amendment. 
But  I  hope  that  at  the  earliest  possible  date  the  amendments 
may  be  submitted  to  the  people,  and  that  you  take  the  steps 
necessary  for  that  purpose.  I  will  not  here  go  into  detail 
as  to  the  proposed  measures.  I  have  collected  what  I  know 
many  of  your  members  have — the  various  constitutional 
12 


amendments  now  in  force  in  different  States — and  at  a  future 
time,  if  desired,  the  detail  to  be  applied  in  this  State  may  be 
taken  up.  Suffice  it  to  say,  so  far  as  the  recall  is  concerned, 
did  the  solution  of  the  matter  rest  with  me,  I  would  apply 
it  to  every  official.  I  commend  to  you  the  proposition  that, 
after  all,  the  initiative  and  the  referendum  depend  on  our 
confidence  in  the  people  and  in  their  ability  to  govern.  The 
opponents  of  direct  legislation  and  the  recall,  however  they 
may  phrase  their  opposition,  in  reality  believe  the  people 
can  not  be  trusted.  On  the  other  hand,  those  of  us  who 
espouse  these  measures  do  so  because  of  our  deep-rooted 
belief  in  popular  government,  and  not  only  in  the  right  of 
the  people  to  govern,  but  in  their  ability  to  govern;  and  this 
leads  us  logically  to  the  belief  that  if  the  people  have  the 
right,  the  ability,  and  the  intelligence  to  elect,  they  have  as 
well  the  right,  ability  and  intelligence  to  reject  or  to  recall; 
and  this  applies  with  equal  force  to  an  administrative  or  a 
judicial  officer. 

I  suggest,  therefore,  that  if  you  believe  in  the 
recall,  and  if  in  your  wisdom  you  desire  its  adop-   Recall  of 
tion  by  the  people,  you  make  no  exception  in  its    Judicial 
application.     It   has   been   suggested   that   by  im-    Officers 
mediate   legislation   you   can  make   the   recall  ap- 
plicable to  counties  without  the   necessity  of   constitutional 
amendment.    If  this  be  so,  and  if  you  believe  in  the  adoption 
of  this  particular  measure,  there  is  no  reason  why  the  Legis- 
lature should  not  at  once  give  to  the  counties  of  the  State 
the  right  which  we  expect  to  accord  to  the  whole  State  by 
virtue  of  constitutional  amendment. 

Were  we  to  do  nothing  else  during  our  terms  of  office 
than  to  require  and  compel  an  undivided  allegiance  to  the 
State  from  all  its  servants,  and  then  to  place  in  the  hands  of 
the  people  the  means  by  which  they  could  continue  that  al- 
legiance, with  the  power  to  legislate  for  themselves  when 
they  desired,  we  would  have  thus  accomplished  perhaps  the 
greatest  service  that  could  be  rendered  our  State.  With  pub- 
lic servants  whose  sole  thought  is  the  good  of  the  State,  the 
prosperity  of  the  State  is  assured,  exaction  and  extortion 


from  the  people  will  be  at  an  end,  in  every  material  aspect 
advancement  will  be  ours,  development  and  progress  will 
follow  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  popular  government  will 
be  perpetuated. 

For  many  years  in  the  past,  shippers,  and 
Railroads  and    those  generally  dealing  with  the  Southern  Pa- 
the  State       cine  Company,  have  been  demanding  protec- 
Government    tion  against  the  rates  fixed  by  that  corpora- 
tion.   The  demand  has  been  answered  by  the 
corporation  by  the  simple  expedient  of  taking  over  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  State;  and  instead  of  regulation  of  the  rail- 
roads, as  the  framers  of  the  new  Constitution  fondly  hoped, 
the  railroad  has  regulated  the  State. 

To  Californians  it  is  quite  unnecessary  to  recall  the  mo- 
tives that  actuated  the  framers  of  the  new  Constitution 
when  Article  XII  was  adopted.  It  was  thought  that  the 
Railroad  Commission  thereby  created  would  be  the  bulwark 
between  the  people  and  the  exactions  and  extortions  and 
discriminations  of  the  transportation  companies.  That  the 
scheme  then  adopted  has  not  proved  effective  has  become 
only  too  plain.  That  this  arose  because  of  the  individuals 
constituting  the  Railroad  Commission  is  in  the  main  true, 
but  it  is  also  apparent  there  has  been  a  settled  purpose  on 
the  part  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Company  not  only  to  elect 
its  own  Railroad  Commission,  but  also  wherever  those  Com- 
missioners made  any  attempt,  however  feeble,  to  act,  to  ar- 
rest the  powers  of  the  Commission,  and  to  have  those  powers 
circumscribed  within  the  narrowest  limits.  All  of  us  who 
recall  the  adoption  of  the  new  Constitution  will  remember 
that  we  then  supposed  the  most  plenary  powers  were  con- 
ferred upon  the  Commission.  It  has  been  gravely  asserted 
of  late,  however,  by  those  representing  the  Railroad  Com- 
pany, and  they  insist  that  in  the  decisions  of  our  courts  there 
is  foundation  for  the  assertion,  that  the  Constitution  does 
not  give  the  Commission  power  to  fix  absolute  rates.  In 
my  opinion  this  power  is  conferred  upon  the  Commission, 
and  in  this  I  am  upheld  by  the  Attorney-General  of  the  State, 


Vll 

and  by  the  very  able  and  eminent  attorneys  who  represent 
the  various  traffic  associations. 

The   people   are   indeed   fortunate   now  in 
having  a   Railroad   Commission  of  ability,  in-      Change  in 
tegrity,  energy  and  courage.     I  suggest  to  you,        Railroad 
and     I     recommend,     that    you     give     to    the     Commission 
Commission   the   amplest   power   that   can   be 
conferred  upon  it.     The  president  of  the  Railroad  Commis- 
sion, Mr.  John  M.  Eshleman,  in  conjunction  with  Attorney- 
General  Webb,  Senator  Stetson  and  others,  in  all  of  whom 
we  have  the  highest  confidence,  has  been  at  work  preparing 
a  bill  which  shall  meet  the  requirements  of  the  case,  and  I 
commend  to  your  particular  attention  this  instrument. 

I  would  suggest  that  an  appropriation  of  at  least  $75,000 
be  made  for  the  use  of  the  Commission  that  it  may,  by  care- 
ful hearing  and  the  taking  of  evidence,  determine  the  physi- 
cal value  of  the  transportation  companies  in  the  State  of 
California,  and  that  the  Commission  may  have  the  power  and 
the  means  to  determine  this  physical  value  justly  and  fairly, 
and  thereafter  ascertain  the  value  of  improvements,  better- 
ments and  the  like,  and  upon  the  values  thus  determined 
may  fix  the  railroad  rates  within  the  State  of  California. 

It  is  asserted  that  some  ambiguity  exr 

The  Bogie  Man    ists  in  that  portion  of  the  language  of  Sec- 
of  tion  22  of  Article  XII  of  the  Constitution, 

Unconstitutionally  which  fixes  the  penalty  when  any  railroad 
company  shall  fail  or  refuse  to  conform  to 
rates  established  by  the  Commission  or  shall  charge  rates  in 
excess  thereof,  and  it  is  claimed  that  the  use  of  the  last 
phrase  "or  shall  charge  rates  in  excess  thereof"  excludes  the 
power  to  punish  discrimination  by  the  railroad  companies. 
The  rational  construction  of  the  language  used  can  lead  to  no 
such  conclusion;  but  if  you  believe  there  is  any  ambiguity  in 
the  constitutional  provision  as  it  now  exists,  or  any  doubt  of 
the  power  conferred  by  it  upon  the  Railroad  Commission,  I 
would  suggest  that  this  matter  be  remedied  by  a  constitutional 
amendment.  In  no  event,  however,  should  action  in  reference 
to  needed  legislation  and  that  herein  suggested  be  deferred.  It 


viii 

is  not  unlikely  that  the  ingenuity  of  those  who  represent  the 
railroad  companies  will  pretend,  and  find  some  advocates  in 
this,  that  all  legislative  action  should  await  the  amendment  of 
the  Constitution.  I  trust  that  you  will  not  permit  this  spe- 
cious plea  to  prevail,  but  that  you  will  at  once  accord  the 
power  to  the  Commission  that  is  designed  by  the  bill  re- 
ferred to. 

I  beg  of  you  not  to  permit  the  bogie  man  of  the  railroad 
companies,  "Unconstitutionality,"  to  deter  you  from  enacting 
the  legislation  suggested,  if  you  believe  that  legislation  to  be 
necessary;  and  I  trust  that  none  of  us  will  be  terrified  by 
the  threat  of  resort  to  the  courts  that  follows  the  instant 
a  railroad  extortion  is  resented  or  attempted  to  be  reme- 
died. Let  us  do  our  full  duty,  now  that  at  last  we  have  a 
Railroad  Commission  that  will  do  its  full  duty,  and  let  us 
give  this  Commission  all  the  power  and  aid  and  resources 
it  requires;  and  if  thereafter  legitimate  work  done  within 
the  law  and  the  Constitution  shall  be  nullified,  let  the  con- 
sequences rest  with  the  nullifying  power. 

California  took  a  long  step  toward  popu- 
lar government  when  the  direct  primary  law   Amendment  of 
was  enacted.    The  first  experiment  under  the   Direct  Primary 
direct  primary  law  has  been  made,  and  de-  Law 

spite  the  predictions  of  the  cynical  and  the 
critical,  the  law  has  been  a  success  and  has  come  to  stay.  It 
may,  however,  be  improved  in  many  respects,  and  so  recent 
has  been  the  discussion  of  the  minor  imperfections  of  the  act 
that  they  are  familiar  to  us  all;  and  I  think  the  desire  is  gen- 
eral to  remedy  those  defects.  When  the  law  shall  have  been 
amended  and  its  imperfections  corrected,  and  when  it  shall 
have  been  made  less  difficult  for  one  to  become  a  candidate 
for  public  office  (and  this  should  be  one  of  the  designs  of 
amendment,  I  think),  the  important  question  of  dealing  with 
the  candidacy  for  United  States  Senator  remains.  Of  course, 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  requires  that  United 
States  Senators  shall  be  elected  by  State  legislatures.  Not- 
withstanding the  popular  demand  expressed  now  for  a  quar- 
ter of  a  century  that  United  States  Senators  should  be 


elected  by  direct  vote  of  the  people,  we  have  been  unable  to 
amend  the  Federal  Constitution;  but  the  people  in  more  than 
half  the  States  are  striving  to  effect  the  same  result  by  in- 
direction. The  result  is  that  our  people,  in  common  with 
those  of  most  of  the  States,  are  seeking  to  have  people  them- 
selves elect  United  States  Senators.  I  do  not  think  it  is  ex- 
travagant to  say  that  nine  electors  out  of  ten  in  California 
desire  the  electorate  directly  to  choose  United  States  Sena- 
tors, and  if  they  possessed  the  power  they  would  remove  the 
selection  wholly  from  the  Legislature.  The  present  primary 
law  in  its  partisan  features  does  not  attain  the  desired  result. 
And  the  present  law,  in  its  provision 

Oregon  Plan  for  relating  to  United  States  Senators,  is  at 
Election  of  United  variance  with  the  wishes  of  an  over- 
states Senators  whelming  majority  of  our  people.  Some 
of  those  who  desire  direct  election  may 
wish  a  selection  made  by  parties,  while  others  would  elimi- 
nate all  partisan  features  in  such  an  election;  yet  all  wish 
a  selection  by  the  whole  State  by  plurality;  and  the 
present  provisions  of  the  primary  law  meet  with  the  ap- 
proval of  none  who  really  wish  the  election  of  United 
States  Senators  by  direct  vote.  I  suggest  to  you,  therefore, 
that  the  present  law  be  amended  so  that  there  be  a  State- 
wide advisory  vote  upon  United  States  Senator;  and  the 
logical  result  of  a  desire  to  elect  United  States  Senators  by 
direct  vote  of  the  people  is  that  that  election  shall  be  of 
any  person  who  may  be  a  candidate,  no  matter  what  party 
he  may  be  affiliated  with.  For  that  reason  I  favor  the  Ore- 
gon plan,  as  it  is  termed,  whereby  the  candidate  for  this 
office  as  for  any  other  office  may  be  voted  for,  and  by  which 
the  candidate  receiving  the  highest  number  of  votes  may 
be  ultimately  selected.  If  in  your  wisdom  you  believe  we 
should  not  go  to  the  full  extent  expressed  in  my  views,  then, 
in  any  event,  the  primary  law  should  make  the  vote  for 
United  States  Senator  State-wide  so  that  the  vote  of  the 
whole  State,  irrespective  of  districts,  shall  control. 


The  most  advanced  thought  in  our  na- 
tion has  reached  the  conclusion  that  we  can  Adoption  of 
best  avoid  blind  voting  and  best  obtain  the  Short  Ballot 
discrimination  of  the  electorate  by  a  short  Recommended 
ballot.  A  very  well-known  editor  in  our 
State,  during  a  recent  lecture  at  Stanford  University,  chal- 
lenged the  faculty  of  that  great  institution  to  produce  a  single 
man  who  had  cast  an  intelligent  vote  for  the  office  of  State 
Treasurer,  and  none  was  produced.  Fortunately  our  State 
Treasurer  is  the  highest  type  of  citizen  and  official.  The  rea- 
son the  challenge  could  not  be  met  was  that,  in  the  hurry  of 
our  existence  and  in  the  engrossing  importance  of  the  contests 
for  one  or  two  offices,  we  can  not  or  do  not  inform  ourselves 
sufficiently  regarding  the  candidates  for  minor  offices.  Again, 
we  elect  some  officials  whose  duties  are  merely  clerical  or 
ministerial  and  whose  qualifications  naturally  can  not  be  well 
understood.  Of  course  it  is  undesirable,  and  indeed,  detri- 
mental, that  we  should  elect  officials  of  whom  we  know  noth- 
ing and  concerning  whom  the  electorate  can  not  learn  and  can 
not  discriminate.  It  is  equally  undesirable  that  those  occupying 
merely  clerical  positions  should  be  voted  for  by  the  entire 
electorate  of  the  State.  The  result  of  a  long  ballot  is  that 
often  candidates  for  minor  offices  are  elected  who  are  unfit 
or  unsatisfactory.  This  conclusion,  I  think,  has  been  reached 
by  students  and  the  far-seeing  in  every  State  in  the  Union. 
If  we  can  remedy  this  condition  it  is  our  duty  to  do  so,  and 
it  is  plain  that  the  remedy  is  by  limiting  the  elective  list 
of  offices  to  those  that  are  naturally  conspicuous.  One  fa- 
miliar with  the  subject  recently  said:  "The  little  offices 
must  either  go  off  the  ballot  and  be  appointed,  no  matter 
how  awkwardly,  or  they  must  be  increased  in  real  public  im- 
portance by  added  powers  until  they  rise  into  such  eminence 
as  to  be  visible  to  all  the  people.  .  .  .  That  candidates 
should  be  conspicuous  is  vital.  The  people  must  be  able  to 
see  what  they  are  doing;  they  must  know  the  candidates, 
otherwise  they  are  not  in  control  of  the  situation  but  ar« 
only  going  through  the  motions  of  controlling." 


XI 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  has  asked 
Absurdities  that  the  Clerk  of  the  Supreme  Court,  now  elect- 
of  Present  ive,  shall  be  made  appointive.  It  is  eminently 
System  just  that  this  should  be  so.  It  is  quite  absurd 
that  the  people  of  an  entire  State  should  be  called 
upon  to  vote  for  a  clerk  of  the  Supreme  Court.  The  office  of 
State  Printer  is  merely  administrative.  Presumably  an  expert 
printer  is  selected  to  fill  this  position,  and  in  the  selection 
of  an  expert  no  reason  at  all  exists  for  the  entire  electorate 
selecting  that  particular  expert.  The  Surveyor-General  like- 
wise performs  merely  ministerial  duties,  presumably  is  only 
an  expert,  and  his  selection  should  be  by  appointment  rather 
than  election.  The  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction,  an 
expert  educator,  is  in  the  same  category.  The  government 
of  the  United  States  is  conducted  with  all  of  its  departments 
with  only  two  elective  officers,  the  President  and  Vice-Presi- 
dent. The  President  has  surrounding  him  a  Cabinet,  the 
members  of  which  perform  all  of  the  duties  that  are  minis- 
terial in  character.  The  Treasurer  of  the  State  of  California 
performs  duties  akin  to  those  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury of  the  United  States.  He  does  nothing  initiative  in  char- 
acter, and  his  office  could  better  be  filled  by  appointment 
than  election.  The  Secretary  of  State  is  in  reality  merely 
the  head  clerk  of  the  State,  and  as  a  clerk  of  the  Supreme 
Court  may  be  better  selected  by  the  Supreme  Court  itself, 
so  the  Secretary  of  State,  as  chief  clerk  of  the  State,  may 
be  better  selected  by  the  head  of  the  State.  The  Attorney- 
General  could  in  like  fashion  be  appointed,  and  if  appointed 
his  office  could  be  made  the  general  office  of  all  legal  depart- 
ments of  the  State.  Every  attorneyship  of  the  State  that 
now  exists,  of  commissions,  and  boards,  and  officials,  could 
be  put  under  his  control,  and  a  general  scheme  of  State  legal 
department  could  thus  be  successfully  evolved — a  department 
economical,  efficient  and  permanent,  and  even  non-partisan 
in  its  character  if  desired. 


xii 

Were  these  various  officials  appointed  by  the 
Governor,  the   chief  officer  of  the  State   could     Advantages 
surround  himself  with  a  cabinet  like  the  cabi-     of  Cabinet 
net  of  the  Chief  Executive  of  the  nation,  and  a        System 
more    compact,    perhaps   more    centralized   and 
possibly  a  more  efficient  government  established.     I  would 
leave  the  Controller  an  elective  officer  because,  theoretically 
at  least,  the  Controller  is  a  check  upon  the  other  officials  of 
the  State,  and  thus  should  be  independent.    Were  these  sug- 
gestions carried  out,  the  State  ballot  would  consist  of  a  Gov- 
ernor, Lieutenant-Governor,  Controller,  members  of  the  ju- 
diciary,  and   members   of  the   Legislature.     Of  course,   any 
change  we  might  make  as  herein  suggested  could  not  operate 
upon  officials  now  in  office  or  during  any  of  our  terms. 

I  recognize  that  the  reform  here  suggested  is  radical 
and  advanced,  but  I  commend  it  to  your  careful  consideration. 

All  of  the  parties  in  the  State  of  California  are  commit- 
ted to  the  policy  of  restoring  the  Australian  ballot  to  its 
original  form;  and,  therefore,  I  merely  call  to  your  attention 
that  restoration  as  one  of  the  duties  that  devolves  upon  us 
because  of  party  pledges. 

And  the  return  of  the  Australian  ballot  to 

For  a  the  form  which  first  we  adopted  in  this  State 
Non-Partisan  provides  an  easy  mode  for  the  redemption  of 
Judiciary  the  promises  that  have  been  made  in  respect  to 
non-partisan  judiciary.  With  the  party  circle 
eliminated,  and  with  the  names  of  the  candidates  for  office 
printed  immediately  under  the  designation  of  the  office, 
when  upon  the  ballot  the  title  of  the  judiciary  is  reached, 
the  names  of  all  the  candidates  may  be  printed  without  any 
party  designation  following  those  names;  and  in  this  fashion 
all  of  the  candidates  for  judicial  position  will  be  presented 
to  the  people  with  nothing  to  indicate  the  political  parties 
with  which  they  have  been  affiliated. 


Xlll 

One   of  the   most   vexatious   subjects   with 
which  legislatures    have    to  deal    is   respecting  Home  Rule 
classification,  salaries,  etc.,  of  the  various  coun-  for 

ties.     The    astonishing   amount    of    time    occu-     Counties, 
pied  by  our  Legislature  in  county  government 
bills  can  only  be  understood  by  those  who  have  been  familiar 
with  legislative  work.     I  quote  from  a  report  by  Controller 
Nye  upon  the  subject: 

"The  first  Legislature  after  the  adoption  of  the  Consti- 
tution commenced  by  making  ten  classes  of  counties,  which 
number  soon  increased  to  more  than  forty,  and  at  the  present 
time  there  are  fifty-eight  classes,  exactly  equaling  the  num- 
ber of  counties. 

"If  there  were  no  other  evidence  of  the  folly  of  trying 
to  legislate  on  county  salaries  by  general  laws,  this  would 
be  conclusive.  But  the  change  of  these  general  laws  to  meet 
the  supposed  needs  of  different  counties  has  been  incessant. 
In  the  legislative  session  of  1905  there  were  forty-five  amend- 
ments to  the  salary  schedules  of  as  many  counties;  in  1907 
there  were  fifty-seven  such  amendments,  one  for  every  county 
then  existing,  and  in  1909  there  were  fifty. 

"So  great  are  the  evils  of  this  form  of  legislation  that 
we  deem  the  only  permanent  remedy  for  them  to  be  the 
submission  and  adoption  of  an  amendment  which  will  permit 
each  county,  proceeding  along  the  same  general  lines  as  those 
prescribed  for  cities,  to  draft  its  own  county  government  act, 
subject  to  ratification  by  the  Legislature.  The  amendment 
should  enumerate  the  subjects  which  may  be  embraced  in 
these  county  government  acts,  or  county  charters,  so  framed, 
and  they  should  include  the  number  and  compensation  of 
officers,  the  granting  or  withholding  of  fees,  the  determina- 
tion whether  the  county  board  of  supervisors  shall  be  elected 
by  districts  or  at  large,  also  the  determination  whether  other 
county  officers  shall  be  elected  or  appointed,  and  such  other 
similar  matters  of  local  concern  as  will  not  interfere  with 
the  operation  of  the  general  plan  of  State  Government." 

I  quite  agree  with  the  views  expressed  by  our  Controller, 
and  adopt  his  recommendation.  It  is  but  just  and  proper 
that  counties  should  rule  themselves  just  as  cities  do,  and  if 
this  be  accomplished  we  will  have  succeeded  in  taking  from 
the  Legislature  perhaps  a  most  vexatious  subject,  and  one 
with  which  of  necessity  it  oftentimes  can  not  deal  with  in- 
telligence, and  we  will  have  saved  to  the  Legislature  and 


the  State  the  immense  amount  of  time  that  is  now  expended 
by  the  Legislature  upon  the  subject.  Of  course,  care  must 
be  exercised  in  any  change  that  practical  uniformity  is 
preserved. 

In  the  first  subject  with  which  I  have  dealt, 
Civil  Service  I  defined  clearly  my  attitude  in  regard  to 
and  the  public  service.  Too  often  it  has  occurred 
Merit  System  that  appointments  to  the  public  service  have 
been  made  solely  because  of  political  affili- 
ations or  a  reward  for  political  service.  It  is  a  design  of  the 
present  administration  to  put  in  force  the  merit  system,  and 
it  is  our  hope  to  continue  that  system  by  virtue  of  a  civil 
service  enactment.  The  committee  recently  appointed  by  the 
Republican  State  Central  Committee  presented  an  act,  cover- 
ing the  subject,  which  I  commend  to  you. 

In  the  abstract  all  agree  upon  the  policy 
of  conservation.     It  is  only  when  we  deal  with    Conservation 
conservation    in    the    concrete    that    we    find      Measures 
opposition  to  the  enforcement  of  the  doctrine         Urged 
enunciated   originally   by  Gifford   Pinchot   and 
Theodore  Roosevelt.    Conservation  means  development,  but 
development  and  preservation;  and  it  would  seem  that  no  ar- 
gument should  be  required  on  the  question  of  preserving,  so 
far  as   we   may,   for   all   of  the    people,    those   things   which 
naturally  belong  to  all.    The  great  natural  wealth  of  water  in 
this  State  has  been  permitted,  under  our  existing  laws  and  lack 
of  system,  to  be  misappropriated  and  to  be  held  to  the  great 
disadvantage   of   its    economical   development.     The    present 
laws  in  this  respect  should  be  amended.     If  it  can  be  demon- 
strated   that   claims   are    wrongfully   or   illegally   held,   those 
claims  should  revert  to  the  State.     A  rational  and  equitable 
code  and  method  of  procedure  for  water  conservation  and 
development  should  be  adopted. 

Humanity  requires  that  we  should  pro- 
Reformatory      vide  a  reformatory  for  first  offenders.    All  of 
Recommended     us   are   agreed   upon   this   matter,   and   your 
wisdom    will    determine    the    best   mode    of 
its  consummation. 


Upon    the    righteousness    of   an    Employers' 
Liability   Law,  no   more   apt   expression   can  be  Employers' 
found   than   that   of   ex-President   Roosevelt   on     Liability 
last  Labor  Day.     He  said:  Law 

"In  what  is  called  'Employers'  Liability'  legislation  other 
industrial  countries  have  accepted  the  principle  that  the  in- 
dustry must  bear  the  monetary  burden  of  its  human  sacri- 
fices, and  that  the  employee  who  is  injured  shall  have  a  fixed 
and  definite  sum.  The  United  States  still  proceeds  on  an 
outworn  and  curiously  improper  principle,  in  accordance  with 
which  it  has  too  often  been  held  by  the  courts  that  the  fright- 
ful burden  of  the  accident  shall  be  borne  in  its  entirety  by 
the  very  person  least  able  to  bear  it.  Fortunately,  in  a  num- 
ber of  States — in  Wisconsin  and  in  New  York,  for  instance — 
these  defects  in  our  industrial  life  are  either  being  remedied 
or  else  are  being  made  a  subject  of  intelligent  study,  with  a 
view  to  their  remedy." 

In  this  State  all  parties  stand  committed  to  a  just  and 
adequate  law  whereby  the  risk  of  the  employment  shall  be 
placed  not  upon  the  employee  alone,  but  upon  the  employ- 
ment itself.  Some  new  legal  questions  will  be  required  to 
be  solved  in  this  connection,  and  the  fellow  servant  rule 
now  in  vogue  in  this  State  will  probably  be  abrogated  and 
the  doctrine  of  contributory  negligence  abridged.  It  is  hoped 
that  those  in  our  State  who  have  given  most  study  to  this 
subject  will  soon  present  to  you  a  comprehensive  bill,  and 
when  this  shall  have  been  done  the  matter  will  again  be 
made  a  subject  of  communication  by  me. 

I  have  purposely  refrained  to-day  from  in- 
Proud  of  dulging  in  panegyrics  upon  the  beauty,  grandeur, 
California  wealth  and  prosperity  of  our  State;  or  from 
solemnly  declaring  that  we  will  foster  industries, 
and  aid  in  all  that  is  material.  It  goes  without  saying  that, 
whatever  political  or  other  differences  may  exist  among 
our  citizens,  all  are  proud  of  California,  its  unbounded 
resources,  its  unsurpassed  scenic  grandeur,  its  climatic  con- 
ditions that  compel  the  wondering  admiration  of  the  world; 
and  all  will  devotedly  lend  their  aid  to  the  proper  develop- 
ment of  the  State,  to  the  protection  and  preservation  of  that 
which  our  citizens  have  acquired,  and  that  which  industrially 
is  in  our  midst.  Ours  of  course  is  a  glorious  destiny,  to  the 


XVI 

promotion  and  consummation  of  which  we  look  forward  with 
pride  and  affection,  and  to  which  we  pledge  our  highest  en- 
deavor. Hand  in  hand  with  that  prosperity  and  material  de- 
velopment that  we  foster,  and  that  will  be  ours  practically  in 
any  event,  goes  political  development.  The  hope  of  govern- 
mental accomplishment  for  progress  and  purity  politically  is 
with  us  in  this  new  era.  This  hope  and  wish  for  accom- 
plishment for  the  supremacy  of  the  right  and  its  maintenance, 
I  believe  to  be  with  every  member  of  the  Legislature.  It  is 
in  no  partisan  spirit  that  I  have  addressed  you;  it  is  in  no 
partisan  spirit  that  I  appeal  to  you  for  aid.  Democrats  and 
Republicans  alike  are  citizens,  and  equal  patriotism  is  in 
each.  Your  aid,  your  comfort,  your  highest  resolve  and 
endeavor,  I  bespeak,  not  as  Republicans  or  Democrats,  but 
as  representatives  of  all  the  people  of  all  classes  and  political 
affiliations,  as  patriots  indeed,  for  the  advancement  and  prog- 
ress and  righteousness  and  uplift  of  California. 

And  may  God  in  his  mercy  grant  us  the  strength  and 
the  courage  to  do  the  right! 


GOVERNOR  JOHNSON'S  MESSAGE  ON  THE 
STATE  PRISON  EMPLOYMENT  BILL. 

To  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  California: 

There  has  been  introduced  to-day  in  the  Senate  and  As- 
sembly a  bill  designated  "An  Act  to  authorize  and  regulate 
the  employment  of  prisoners  in  the  State  prisons  of  this 
State,  and  to  provide  for  the  disposition  of  the  products  of 
their  skill  and  labor,"  the  design  of  which  is  to  enable  the 
prisoners  in  the  State  prisons  to  manufacture  such  articles, 
materials,  and  supplies  as  may  be  needed  for  any  public  use 
by  the  State,  or  any  county  or  municipality,  or  that  may  be 
used  or  required  in  any  State  institution. 

This  message  is  sent  that  you  may  have  before  you  the 
purpose  of  the  bill  and  the  reasons  actuating  Warden  Hoyle, 
of  San  Quentin,  in  its  preparation,  and  that  have  induced 
me  to  recommend  it. 

In  the  care  and  maintenance  of  convicts,  the  first  problem 
that  presents  itself  to  the  State  is  to  furnish  appropriate  and 
rational  employment,  not  only  that  prisoners  may  be  kept 
from  idleness,  but  that  they  may  be  taught  during  the  period 
of  their  confinement  useful  trades,  and  may  after  the  expira- 
tion of  their  terms  be  able  to  follow  legitimate  employment 
and  to  rehabilitate  themselves.  The  most  efficacious  manner 
in  which  this  humanitarian  doctrine  can  be  consummated  is 
in  regular  hours  of  employment,  in  regular  trades  for  those 
who  are  confined  within  the  prisons,  and  by  such  regulations 
to  provide  the  physical  and  mental  activity  necessary,  and 
thus  to  afford  the  possibility,  the  hope,  and  the  opportunity 
for  ultimate  regeneration. 

The  other  reason  why  the  proposed  measure  will  be  ad- 
vantageous is  upon  the  financial  side.  If  permission  to  manu- 
facture and  produce  the  articles  mentioned  be  accorded,  the 
State  prisons  in  great  measure  will  be  self-supporting,  and  it 
is  the  hope  of  Warden  Hoyle,  based  upon  experience  in  other 
places, — and  his  hope  seems  to  me  justified, — that  within  a 
few  years  the  State  prisons  of  the  State  of  California,  under 


XV111 

the  plan  suggested,  will  be  wholly  self-supporting,  and  will 
not  require  further  aid  of  the  government. 

The  objection  to  the  manufacture  of  articles  in  the  State 
prisons  comes  generally,  and  justly,  I  think,  from  the  free 
labor  of  the  State.  The  purpose  of  the  bill  that  has  been 
introduced  is  to  permit  only  those  articles  to  be  manufac- 
tured which  are  used  by  the  State,  the  county,  or  the  munic- 
ipality, and  does  not  permit  their  sale  privately. 

The  restrictions  within  the  bill  are  such  that  prison  labor 
shall  not  be  brought  in  competition  with  free  labor.  The 
particular  measure  that  has  been  introduced  has  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  San  Francisco  Labor  Council,  and  has  received 
the  sanction  of  that  body. 

It  is  presented  to  you,  therefore,  with  a  full  knowledge 
and  approval  of  labor  within  the  State  of  California. 

The  cost  of  maintaining  the  prisons  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia is,  in  round  figures,  something  over  half  a  million  dol- 
lars per  annum.  If  this  cost  can  be  met  in  any  measure  by  the 
proposed  plan,  apparently  it  should  commend  itself  to  us  all. 
Beyond  this,  if  it  meets  the  requirements  first  suggested,  of 
furnishing  the  necessary  activity  physically  and  mentally  to 
prisoners,  and  with  the  learning  of  useful  trades  or  occupa- 
tions will  enable  prisoners  better  to  care  for  themselves  after 
their  release,  an  amply  sufficient  reason  is  presented  for  its 
passage.  In  order  to  carry  out  the  proposed  scheme,  no 
appropriation  is  asked  from  the  Legislature. 

Two  Acts  are  presented  with  the  bill,  which  establish 
from  the  present  earnings  of  the  prison  a  fund  which  may  be 
used  in  preparing  for  the  manufacture  and  production  of  the 
articles  named. 

I  might  add  that  the  scheme  proposed,  and  indeed  the  bill 
as  drawn,  is  fashioned  upon  the  law  that  is  now  in  force  in 
the  State  of  New  York,  and  which  has  worked  so  beneficially 
there. 

The  bills  and  the  facts  set  forth  in  this  message  are  sub- 
mitted for  your  consideration. 

Respectfully, 
January  30,  1911.  HIRAM  W.  JOHNSON,  Governor. 


1910  REPUBLICAN  STATE  PLATFORM. 

Adopted  at  San  Francisco,  Sept.  1910 

The  California  Republican  State  convention  hereby  de- 
clares the  continued  allegiance  of  the  Republicans  of  Cali- 
fornia to  the  Republican  party,  and  to  the  progressive 
Republican  policies  enunciated  by  President  Roosevelt  and 
reaffirmed  and  already  in  part  enacted  into  law  under  the 
administration  of  President  Taft.  We  commend  President 
Taft  in  his  efforts  and  announced  intention  further  to  carry 
out  these  policies,  and  look  to  our  Senators  and  Represent- 
atives in  Congress  to  co-operate  with  him  to  that  end. 

We  declare  our  unswerving  adherence  to  the  Republican 
doctrine  of  protection,  without  which  the  American  standard 
of  living  can  not  be  maintained.  We  hold  that  the  true 
measure  of  protection  is  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction and  distribution  at  home  and  abroad.  Less  than  this 
is  unjust  to  the  American  laborer  and  producer;  more  is 
unjust  to  the  American  consumer. 

We  believe  that  the  methods  of  trade  and 

Tariff  barter  heretofore  prevailing  in  the  framing  of 
Commission  tariff  bills  have  resulted  in  unsatisfactory  tariff 

Urged  laws.  We  therefore  join  with  the  President  in 
demanding  the  appointment  of  a  permanent 
tariff  commission,  wholly  removed  from  the  possibility  of 
political  pressure  or  improper  business  influences.  Such  com- 
mission should  ascertain  the  difference  between  the  cost  of 
production,  which  is  mainly  the  difference  of  labor  cost,  and 
the  distribution  here  and  abroad.  As  fast  as  its  recom- 
mendations are  made  Congress  should  revise  one  schedule 
at  a  time.  We  oppose  any  future  general  revision  based 
upon  insufficient  data  to  determine  the  amount  of  protection 
actually  needed. 


XX 

The  Republican  party  of  California,  re- 
pudiates the  dominating  influence  heretofore  Southern  Pacific 
exercised  in  the  councils  of  the  party  or-       Domination 
ganization  and  in  the  conduct  of  the  govern-       Repudiated 
ment  of  the  State  by  the  Southern  Pacific 
railroad  and  allied  corporations.    We  call  upon  the  legislative 
and  executive  officials  now  about  to  be  elected  to  eliminate 
that  influence  from  all  participation  or  control  in  the  govern- 
mental affairs  of  the  State.     We  recognize  the  value  of  the 
service  of  all  transportation  companies  and  we  make  no  attack 
upon  the  legitimate  business  of  the  Southern  Pacific  railroad 
or  any  other  corporation.    But  we  deny  the  right  of  any  cor- 
poration   to   usurp    the    functions    of    government    or    party 
management,    and    we    expect    a    Republican    Governor   and 
Legislature  to  take  such  action  as  will  terminate  that  control. 

We  repudiate  also  the  domination  of  like  interests,  inso- 
far as  it  has  been  manifested  in  the  National  Government 
and  in  national  politics,  and  call  upon  our  Representatives 
in  Congress,  irrespective  of  their  past  attitudes  on  the  im- 
mediate parliamentary  issues  raised  by  the  Insurgents  in 
the  last  Congress,  to  join  with  the  progressive  forces  in 
needed  reforms  in  the  methods  of  Congress  and  in  the 
elimination  from  control  therein  of  the  reactionary  forces. 

The  system  of  direct  primary  nomination 
To  Simplify      has  justified  itself  by  results.     It  has  elimi- 
Direct  Primary  nated  log  rolling  and  trading,  the  stock  re- 
Law  sources  of  the  political  boss,  and  has  substi- 
tuted the  directly  expressed  will  of  the  party 
members.    We  commend  to  the  people  of  California  the  Re- 
publican candidates  thus  chosen  by  the  Republican  voters  at 
the  primary  polls,  who  will  be  led  to  victory  next  November 
by  those  fearless  leaders  of  the  people's   cause,   Hiram  W. 
Johnson  and  Albert  J.  Wallace. 

In  practice  the  present  primary  law  has  shown  itself 
cumbersome  and  complicated  in  some  of  its  details.  We 
recommend  to  the  next  Legislature  such  simplification  of 
the  law  as  may  be  found  practicable. 


XXI 

We   recommend   the   enactment   by   the 

next  Legislature,  and  transmission  to  Con-  Direct  Vote  for 
gress,  of  an  act  or  joint  resolution  favoring    United  States 
an    amendment   to    the    Constitution    of   the         Senator 
United  States  providing  for  the  election  of 
the  United  States  Senators  by  direct  vote  of  the  people,  and, 
pending  the  adoption  of  this  amendment,  such  a  revision  of 
the  primary  law  of  the  State  as  shall  afford  a  State-at-large 
advisory  vote  as  to  the  election  of  United  States  Senator. 

We  recognize  that  the  principal  achievement  of  this  first 
direct  primary  nominating  election  in  California,  and  of  the 
State  government  to  be  elected  at  the  general  election  follow- 
ing it,  must  be  the  destruction  of  the  system  and  influences 
which  have  hitherto  hindered  constructive  legislative  and 
administrative  reforms.  Unless  this  is  done,  nothing  else 
can  be  undertaken  with  the  hope  of  success.  But  this 
being  now  assured,  it  becomes  possible  to  inaugurate  a  com- 
prehensive plan  of  constructive  legislation  and  we  recommend 
to  the  Legislature  and  the  Governor  the  following  measures: 
A  constitutional  amendment  providing 
Constructive  for  a  shorter  ballot,  reducing  to  a  minimum 
Legislation  the  number  of  elective  offices,  and  thereby 
Recommended  relieving  the  confusion  caused  by  a  multi- 
plicity of  candidates  for  minor  offices. 

The  restoration  of  the  true  Australian  ballot,  as  originally 
enacted  in  California,  without  the  party  circle  or  party 
column. 

The  placing  of  the  names  of  judicial  candidates  on  the 
primary  and  general  election  ballots  without  party  desig- 
nation. 

The  submission  to  the  people  of  constitutional  amend- 
ments providing  for  direct  legislation  in  the  State  and  in  the 
county  and  local  governments,  through  the  initiative,  the 
referendum  and  the  recall. 

A  county  government  act  which  shall  provide  an  improved 
system  of  county  government,  with  the  greatest  possible 
measure  of  home  rule  compatible  with  necessary  uniformity. 

Such  revision  of  the  laws  of  criminal  procedure  in  this 


XX11 

State  as  shall  make  the  administration  of  justice  more 
speedy  and  certain,  and  prevent  the  delays  in  the  punish- 
ment of  criminals  and  escape  of  offenders  upon  technical 
grounds  not  connected  with  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
accused. 

The  enactment  of  laws  for  the  establishment  in  Cali- 
fornia of  a  modern  reformatory  for  first  offenders,  so  as 
to  make  it  possible  to  apply  effective  reformation  treatment, 
and  to  separate  from  the  older  and  confirmed  criminals  the 
first  offenders  and  younger  prisoners,  whom  experience  has 
shown  can  be  permanently  reformed  by  proper  discipline. 

The  elimination  of  partisan  patronage  from 
the    administrative    department    of    government,      Partisan 
and  in  general  the  introduction  of  the  merit  sys-   Patronage 
tern  in  the  public  service.  Condemned 

Systematic  examination  of  the  business  and 
accounting  methods  of  the  various  State  and  county  offices, 
with  a  view  to  introducing  a  system  of  uniform  accounting 
and  providing  the  highest  degree  of  economy  and  efficiency 
now  made  practicable  by  the  development  of  modern  busi- 
ness methods. 

We   indorse  and   heartily   approve   of   the 
Indorse        admirable    policies    of    national    conservation 
Conservation   initiated  by  President  Roosevelt  and  organized 
Policies        by  Gifford  Pinchot.     We  recommend  the  en- 
actment by  the  Legislature  of  laws  which,  with- 
out conflicting  with  national  conservation,  shall  apply  similar 
standards  of  the  conservation  of  such  natural  resources  as 
come  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the   State. 

In  the  contest  of  the  wage  worker  and  the  capitalist,  we 
stand  for  the  square  deal  for  both,  and  favor  legislation  by 
State  and  Nation  which  will  improve  the  conditions  of  labor 
and  best  conserve  the  source  of  all  wealth — human  life. 


We  recognize  that  the  wage  earner  has  the 
same  right  to  organize  for  the  improvement  of        Labor 
the  conditions  under  which   he  labors  that   the   Legislation 
capitalist  has  to  use  his  capital  in  corporate  en-    Necessary 
terprises.     Both  forms  of  organization  should  be 
given   equal   opportunity  before  the   law  to  carry  out  their 
legitimate  aims. 

An  employers'  liability  act  which  shall  put  upon  the  in- 
dustry the  charges  of  its  risks  of  human  life  and  limb,  along 
the  lines  recommended  by  Theodore  Roosevelt. 

The  better  definition  and  limitation  of  the  rights  of 
courts  in  the  issuance  of  injunction  in  labor  disputes  along 
the  lines  recommended  by  President  Taft  to  the  last  National 
Republican  convention. 

Such  additional  legislation  or  constitu- 

To  Make  Railroad  tional  amendments  as  may  be  necessary  to 
Commission       make  the  State  Railroad  Commission  fully 

Effective  effective,  including  provision  for  the  physi- 
cal valuation  of  railroad  properties  as  one 
essential  step  toward  a  true  basis  for  the  fixing  of  rates,  pro- 
visions for  a  uniform  system  of  accounting,  for  giving  the 
Commission  power  to  initiate  action,  and  such  further  pro- 
visions for  the  regulation  of  rates  and  services  as  shall  fully 
and  effectively  protect  the  rights  of  both  the  people  and  the 
railroads. 

We    recommend   the   submission   and   adop- 
tion of  a  constitutional  amendment  providing  for       Public 
the  appointment  of  a  public  service  commission      Service 
which  shall  have  general  supervision  of  all  public  Commission 
service    corporations    and    fix    the    rates    to    be 
charged  by  them,   such   commission   to   be   similar  to  those 
now    in    existence    in    other    States,    where    experience    has 
demonstrated  their  usefulness. 

We  demand  the  strict  and  vigorous  enforcement  of  the 
anti-trust  laws  against  all  offenders. 

We  recommend  to  the  favorable  consideration  of;  the 
voters  of  California  the  propositions  to  be  submitted  to  them 
at  the  coming  election,  providing  for  the  improvement  of  the 


public  roads  and  for  the  improvement  of  the  harbors  of  San 
Francisco  and  San  Diego. 

Upon  this  platform  of  progressive  Republican  principles 
we  invite  the  co-operation  and  aid  of  all  citizens,  to  the 
end  that  the  candidates  chosen  by  the  Republican  voters  of 
California  may  be  elected  and  the  policies  herein  enunciated 
successfully  carried  into  effect. 

The  submission  to  the  judgment  of  the  voters 
Woman  of  California  of  a  constitutional  amendment  pro- 
Suffrage  viding  for  woman  suffrage. 

Amendment  We  declare  our  faith  in  the  unswerving  op- 
position of  the  people  of  California  to  the  fur- 
ther admission  of  Oriental  laborers,  and  we  urge  on  Congress 
and  the  President  the  adoption  of  all  necessary  measures  to 
guard  against  this  evil. 

We   urge    Congress   to   provide   for   prompt 
establishment  of  a  Government  line  of  steamships  Government 
between  Panama  and  Pacific  Coast  points.  Steamships 

We  indorse  the  proposed  Panama  canal  ex-    on  Pacific 
position  and  urge  upon  Congress  the  recognition 
of  the  claims  of  San   Francisco  as  the  proper  location  for 
such  exposition. 

We  recommend  that  our  representatives  in  the  Legis- 
lature work  and  vote  for  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  recently  submitted  to  the  various 
Legislatures  by  Congress,  permitting  an  income  tax  to  be 
levied. 


1910  DEMOCRATIC  STATE  PLATFORM. 

Adopted  at  Stockton,  Sept.  10,  1910 

We  denounce  the  Payne-Aldrich  tariff  law  as  a  gross 
violation  of  the  solemn  promise  made  to  the  American 
people  by  the  Republican  Party  in  its  Chicago  platform  of 
1908,  under  the  false  plea  of  protecting  American  Labor. 
A  Republican  administration  has  vested  favored  interests 
with  the  power  of  levying  and  collecting  tariff  taxes  upon 
the  whole  American  people,  without  making  any  provision 
that  those  who  collect  taxes  should  divide  any  part  of 
them  with  the  American  laborer  in  whose  ostensible  behalf 
they  are  levied. 

We  reiterate  the  declaration  of  our  platform  four  years 
ago:  "The  emancipation  of  California  from  Southern  Pa- 
cific domination  overshadows  every  other  public  question." 
We  pledge  our  Nominees  to  the  accomplishment  of  the 
work  of  eliminating  all  pernicious  corporate  influence  from 
our  public  affairs.  We  congratulate  the  Democrats  of  Cali- 
fornia for  having  selected  candidates  whose  public  records 
and  high  character  guarantee  that  this  work  will  be  well 
done. 

We  stand  for  the  following: 

1 — The  equal  protection  and  enforcement  of  the  law. 

2 — Retrenchment  and  reform  in  public  expenditures. 

3 — The  elimination  of  party  politics  from  all  our  public 
institutions,  including  our  schools. 

4 — An  honest,  efficient  public  service. 

5 — A  non-partisan  judiciary. 

6 — The  removal  of  the  party  circle  from  the  ballot. 

7 — The  exclusion  of  all  Asiatic  labor. 

8 — The  eight  hour  law  and  the  child  labor  law,  as  pro- 
mulgated by  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

9 — A  reformatory  for  first  offenders. 

10 — A  simplified  criminal  procedure. 


11 — A  simplified  direct  primary  law  and  the  selection 
of  United  States  Senators  by  the  direct  vote  of  the  people. 

12 — The  initiative,  referendum  and  recall  in  State  and 
local  governments. 

13 — Strict  regulation  of  all  public  service  corporations 
and  the  physical  valuation  of  their  properties  for  the  pur- 
pose of  protecting  the  public  from  exorbitant  rates  and 
discrimination. 

14 — An  active,  honest  and  efficient  discharge  of  the 
duties  incumbent  upon  the  State's  Railroad  Commission. 

15 — Internal  improvements,  including  particularly  the 
improvement  of  highways,  waterways  and  harbors. 

16 — The  improvement  of  our  local  school  system,  in- 
cluding practical  training  and  preparation  in  the  useful  arts, 
trades  and  occupations,  compulsory  education  and  avoidance 
of  the  practice  of  frequently  changing  the  text  books. 

17 — The  fostering  of  the  agricultural,  horticultural,  viti- 
cultural  and  live-stock  industries  of  California. 

18 — 'The  encouragement  of  manufacturing  to  the  end 
that  our  domestic  wants  may  be  supplied  by  home  industry. 

19 — Publicity  in  the  conduct  of  the  State  Fish  and 
Game  Commission,  showing  in  detail  the  work  done  and  the 
particular  items  of  receipt  and  expenditure,  and  the  re- 
moval of  special  privilege  in  the  protection  and  propagation 
of  our  fish  and  game. 

20 — The  adoption  of  the  Sanford  bill  preventing  Asiatics, 
who  are  not  eligible  to  citizenship  in  America,  from  owning 
or  leasing  land  in  California. 

21 — The  establishment  and  operation  by  the  Government 
of  a  steamship  line  between  Pacific  Coast  points  and  the 
Pacific  terminus  of  the  Panama  Railway. 

22 — The  conservation  of  remaining  natural  resources  for 
the  benefit  of  the  whole  people  and  the  enactment  of  laws 
which  will  forever  prevent  their  seizure  and  control  by 
private  monopoly,  and  to  this  end  we  urge  the  exercise  of 
all  powers  national,  state  and  municipal,  both  separately  and 
in  co-operation. 


1907-8  PLATFORM  LINCOLN-ROOSEVELT 
LEAGUE. 

Adopted  at  Oakland  Aug.  1,  1907 

Whereas,  The  organization  and  control  of  the  Republican 
party  of  the  State  of  California  have  fallen  into  the  hands  of 
the  political  bureau  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Company,  which 
has  usurped  functions  of  right  belonging  to  the  Republican 
party  and  its  membership;  and, 

Whereas,  We  have  undoubted  faith  in  the  ability  of 
that  great  party  to  govern  itself;  and, 

Whereas,  We  resent  this  usurpation,  now,  therefore,  be 
it  resolved,  that  we  do  hereby  pledge  our  fealty  to  the 
principles  of  the  Republican  party,  and  proclaim  the  follow- 
ing platform  in  order  that  "Government  of  the  people,  by 
the  people  and  for  the  people  may  not  perish  from  the 
earth." 

The  immediate  and  essential  purposes  of  the  Lincoln- 
Roosevelt  Republican  League  movement  in  California  are: 

The  emancipation  of  the  Republican  party  in  California 
from  domination  by  the  political  bureau  of  the  Southern 
Pacific  Railroad  Company  and  allied  interests,  and  the  re- 
organization of  the  State  committee  to  that  end. 

The  selection  of  delegates  to  the  next  Republican 
national  convention  pledged  to  vote  and  work  for  the 
nomination  of  a  candidate  known  to  be  truly  committed 
to,  and  identified  with  President  Roosevelt's  policies,  and  to 
oppose  the  nomination  of  any  reactionary  styled  "safe  and 
sane"  by  the  great  corporate  interests. 

The  election  of  a  free,  honest  and  capable  Legislature, 
truly  representative  of  the  common  interests  of  the  people 
of  California. 

The  pledging  of  all  delegates  to  conventions  against  the 
iniquitous  practice  of  "trading"  whereby  political  bosses  ef- 


feet  nominations  by  bargain  and  sale,  and  the  enactment 
of  legislation  penalizing  such  practices. 

The  enactment  by  the  next  Legislature  of  such  laws  as 
will  give  voters  an  advisory  voice  in  the  election  of  United 
States  Senators  until  such  time  as  an  amendment  to  the 
national  constitution  shall  make  that  voice  direct  and  absolute, 
which  amendment  we  favor. 

The  pledging  of  candidates  for  the  Legislature  to  the 
enactment  of  such  a  primary  election  law  as  shall  afford 
the  party  voter  a  direct  voice  in  the  selection  of  party 
candidates. 


1909-10  PLATFORM  LINCOLN-ROOSEVELT 
LEAGUE. 

Adopted  at  Oakland  Meeting  Nov.  22,  1909 

The  Lincoln-Roosevelt  Republican  League  has  been  or 
ganized  for  the  purpose  of  gathering  into  an  effective  work- 
ing  body    the    majority    of    the    Republicans    of    California, 
which   majority   has   long   been   ineffective   through   lack   of 
organization. 

The  league  aims'  to  free  the  Republican  party  from 
domination  by  corrupting  corporations,  political  bosses  and 
the  criminal  classes  manipulated  by  their  political  bureaus. 
The  league  aims  also  to  place  the  political  and  official  life 
of  the  State  on  a  higher  plane,  to  the  end  that  every  citizen, 
upon  an  equality,  may  participate  at  every  stage  in  the 
affairs  of  government  without  fear  of  any  loss  of  self- 
respect  and  that  the  public  service  shall  be  restored  to  its 
old-time  dignity,  efficiency  and  honor. 

We  reaffirm  our  allegiance  to  the  Republican  party  and 
to  the  Roosevelt  policies,  and  heartily  indorse  President 
Taft  in  his  avowed  determination  to  carry  out  and  enforce 


those  policies,  and  we  pledge  him  our  support  as  Republicans 
in  securing  their  enactment  into  law  and  in  the  enforcement 
of  such  laws. 

We,  as  Republicans,  pledge  our  united  efforts  to  emanci- 
pate the  policies  and  government  of  the  State  of  California 
from  corporation  control,  and  to  this  end  we  favor: 

The  election  of  a  State  administration  free  from  control 
by  the  political  bureau  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad 
Company  and  allied  interests,  and  pledged  to  a  policy  of 
efficiency  and  economy  rather  than  to  the  maintenance  of 
a  political  machine  through  the  spoils  of  office. 

Such  a  revision  and  simplification  of  our  system  of 
laws  and  precedure  as  shall  result  in  the  speedy  and  equal 
enforcement  of  the  law. 

The  nomination  and  election  to  the  Legislature  of  those 
candidates  only  who  are  known  to  be  capable  and  honest 
and  free  from  all  obligations  to  the  political  bureau  of  the 
Southern  Pacific  Company  and  allied  interests,  but  who 
will  treat  the  rights  of  corporations'  as  justly  as  the  rights 
of  individuals. 

We  demand  that  the  next  Legislature  adopt  in  proper 
form  and  transmit  to  Congress  an  act  or  joint  resolution 
favoring  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  providing  for  the  election  of  United  States  Senators 
by  direct  vote  of  the  people,  and  pending  the  adoption  of 
such  amendment  we  urge  that  the  existing  primary  election 
law  be  so  amended  as  to  afford  a  State-wide  advisory  expres- 
sion of  party  opinion  as  to  their  election. 


EXPLANATION  OF  VOTES  FOR  UNITED 
STATES  SENATOR. 

From  Senate  and  Assembly  Journals,  Jan.  10,  1911 

Senator  Shanahan — I  shall  cast  my  vote  for  United  States 
Senator  in  favor  of  John  D.  Works  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  He    received    all   of   the   Democratic   votes    cast   for 
United  States  Senator  in  my  senatorial  district  at  the  primary 
election  held  on  August  16,  1910. 

2.  He  received  th?  highest  vote  cast  by  Democrats  for 
United  States  Senator  in  each  of  a  large  plurality  of  legis- 
lative districts  at  the  said  primary  election. 

3.  He  received  a  plurality  at  the  said  primary  election  of 
all  the  Democratic  votes  cast  for  that  office. 

4.  He  received  a  plurality  of  all  the  votes  cast  by  mem- 
bers of  all  political  parties  at  the  said  primary  election  for 
that  office. 

For  the  reasons  above  given,  numbered  1  and  2,  under 
the  law  and  fact  I  am  directed  to  vote  for  John  D.  Works. 
Under  the  reasons  numbered  3  and  4,  I  am  held  to  vote  for 
him  on  the  broad  principle  that  I  have  always  stood  for, 
and  now  stand  for,  and  that  the  Democratic  party  of  this 
State  stands  for,  that  a  State-wide  vote  should  determine  the 
choice  of  United  States  Senators. 

The  paucity  of  the  Democratic  vote  cast  at  the  primaries 
does  not  alter  the  law,  or  the  fact,  or  the  principle  involved. 
Under  the  law  and  fact  and  principle  involved  I  shall  record 
my  vote  for  John  D.  Works  for  United  States  Senator;  and 
ask  permission  of  the  Senate  that  this  explanation  be  printed 
in  the  Journal  of  this  day's  proceedings. 


Senator  Caminetti — Committed  to  the  principle  that  Uni- 
ted States  Senators  should  be  elected  by  direct  vote  of  the 


people,  and  now  governed  by  the  position  I  took  during  the 
last  campaign,  I  feel  in  duty  bound  at  this  session  to  follow 
the  advisory  State-wide  vote  cast  at  the  recent  election, 
wherein  Hon.  John  D.  Works  received  a  plurality  of  the 
votes  canvassed  for  that  office.  My  position  two  years  ago 
on  this  question  was  directed  by  what  I  considered  the  wish 
of  the  people  of  my  district  in  the  absence  of  a  State  vote. 
Under  other  conditions  and  other  circumstances  I  would  at 
this  time  cheerfully  favor  Hon.  John  E.  Raker,  as  I  look 
upon  him  not  only  as  a  progressive  Democrat,  but  also  as  a 
progressive  American,  committed  to  principles  and  policies 
which  guarantee  people's  rule  and  protect  people's  rights  in 
State  and  Nation. 


Senator  Burnett — I  made  the  original  motion  in  the  Sen- 
ate caucus  that  the  vote  on  United  States  Senator  be  ad- 
visory by  district. 

Nineteen  men  in  the  Senate  of  1909  were  each  respon- 
sible for  the  advisory  by  district  provision,  as  any  one  of 
them  voting  on  the  other  side  would  have  made  the  pro- 
vision State-wide. 

The  provision  of  the  Act  that  the  vote  is  advisory  by 
district  operates  in  such  a  manner  that  those  who  believe 
they  are  bound  by  it  under  the  law  are  helpless,  while  any 
man  who  may  disregard  the  primary  law  is  free  to  vote  for 
whom  he  pleases. 

This  places  the  law-abiding  man  at  the  mercy  of  the  one 
who  disregards  the  law,  having  the  same  effect  as  the  pro- 
vision in  the  old  party  primary  law,  that  the  voter  who  would 
swear  it  was  his  present  intention  to  vote  for  a  ticket  at  the 
following  election  would  swing  from  side  to  side,  while  the 
man  who  regarded  his  oath  would  not  do  so. 

A  member  of  the  Legislature  is  advised  under  the  law  to 
vote  either  for  the  candidate  for  United  States  Senator  of 
his  own  political  faith  who  carries  his  district  or  for  the  can- 
didate of  his  own  political  faith  who  carries  the  greatest 


number  of  districts  electing  members  of  the  Legislature  of 
his  own  political  faith. 

This  results  in  the  following  condition:  That  wherever 
legislators  advised  to  vote  for  a  certain  candidate  do  not 
follow  the  advice  of  their  constituents  they  have  those  who 
believe  they  are  bound  under  the  law  at  the  greatest  disad- 
vantage. 

Members  of  an  opposing  political  faith  who  have  no 
candidate  (such  as  the  Democratic  party  in  this  instance)  are 
left  as  free  rovers  to  determine  the  successful  candidate  of 
another  party  (in  this  instance  the  Republican),  and  together 
with  such  members  as  may  disregard  the  advisory  vote  for 
United  States  Senator  may  easily  defeat  the  candidate  car- 
rying the  largest  number  of  advised  districts. 

Again,  Democrats  may  be  elected  who  have  pledged  them- 
selves to  a  certain  Republican  candidate  where  their  party 
has  no  candidate  at  the  primaries,  and  this  again  defeats  this 
Act.  This  may,  in  a  special  instance,  work  for  good  but  it 
may  just  as  readily  work  for  evil. 

After  lying  awake  many  hours  considering  this  matter 
last  night,  I  came  to  the  final  conclusion  that  no  member  of 
the  Legislature  is  justified  by  any  act  of  his,  whether  in  the 
form  of  a  law  or  otherwise,  to  so  delegate  the  powers  con- 
ferred upon  him  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
that  the  present  condition  of  affairs  may  exist,  and  that  he 
is  not  bound  under  any  such  law  even  if  he  was  largely  in- 
strumental in  passing  it. 

I  desire,  and  have  always  desired,  to  cast  my  vote  to  the 
best  of  my  ability  in  the  interest  of  the  general  welfare  of  the 
State.  I  believe  the  present  law  as  affecting  election  of  Uni- 
ted States  Senators  to  be  an  error. 

It  is  not  contemplated  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  that  the  power  of  the  legislators  of  the  various 
States  to  elect  United  States  Senators  shall  be  delegated  to 
various  groups  of  electors  in  political  parties,  but  rather  that 
the  legislators  shall  vote  as  independent  men  solely  guided 
by  the  best  interest  of  the  State. 

However,  we  know  that  this  is  not  always  the  attitude  of 


XXX111 

members  of  the  Legislature.  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the 
present  law  is  a  failure. 

I  believe  that  no  delegation  of  power  of  electing  or  sug- 
gesting the  election  of  a  United  States  Senator  should  be 
delegated  to  any  combination  of  people  other  than  the  ad- 
visory vote  of  the  whole  State,  running  the  successful  party 
candidates  against  each  other,  or  else  by  advisory  or  directory 
vote  under  the  Oregon  plan.  Only  in  this  method  can  sta- 
bility be  assured. 

I  am  forced  to  this  conclusion,  against  my  will,  by  the 
working  of  our  present  law. 

We  are,  in  this  instance,  but  little  if  any  better  situated 
than  we  were  under  the  old  law. 

The  same  pulling  and  hauling  goes  on  here  with  the 
same  results  as  under  the  old  regime. 

I  feel  that  I  am  at  liberty  to  exercise  my  free  choice  and 
shall  vote  for  John  D.  Works  for  United  States  Senator. 


Assemblyman  Griffin — While  conceding  that  there  prob- 
ably are  other  men  within  the  ranks  of  the  progressives  in 
this  State  who  could  represent  the  great  Commonwealth  of 
California  with  greater  vigor  in  the  United  States  Senate 
than  Judge  Works,  it  seems  to  me  that  at  this  time  the  line 
of  demarcation  is  clearly  drawn  between  the  progressives  and 
the  ultra-conservatives,  and  as  I  have  ever  been  a  consistent 
believer  in  popular  government  and  progressive  democracy, 
it  is  my  duty  to  vote  for  the  candidate  that  seems  to  be  on 
that  side  of  the  line  of  demarcation.  It  is  my  sincere  hope 
and  desire  that  the  present  Legislature  shall  forever  make  it 
impossible  for  the  present  situation  to  recur,  and  this  can 
be  done  by  the  enactment  of  the  Oregon  plan  of  choosing 
United  States  Senators,  which  I  had  the  honor  and  privilege 
this  day  to  introduce. 


Assemblyman  Stuckenbruck — Having  always  believed  in 
the  election  of  United  Senators  by  direct  vote  of  the  people, 


and  as  Works  received  the  majority  of  such  vote  in  my  dis- 
trict, I  deem  it  my  duty  to  vote  for  Judge  Works  for  United 
States  Senator. 


Assemblyman  Wilson — In  explanation  of  my  vote  for 
John  D.  Works  for  Senator  from  California  in  the  United 
States  Congress,  I  wish  to  say  that  my  district  cast  for  John 
D.  Works  a  majority  of  its  advisory  vote  for  United  States 
Senator.  I  favor  the  direct  popular  election  of  United  States 
Senator,  and  under  our  present  primary  law  the  advisory 
vote  so  cast  is  the  best  information  which  I  can  obtain  as 
to  the  wishes  of  my  constituents  in  the  matter  of  electing  a 
United  States  Senator.  In  observance  of  that  expressed  wish 
I  cast  my  vote  for  John  D.  Works. 


Assemblyman  Coghlan — Section  2  of  the  Act  to  regulate 
Primary  Elections  reads  in  part  as  follows:  "The  vote  for 
candidates  for  United  States  Senators  shall  be  an  advisory 
vote  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  sentiment  of  the 
voters  in  the  respective  .  .  .  Assembly  District  in  the 
respective  parties." 

I  believe  that  under  the  terms  of  section  1  of  the  Primary 
Election  Law,  I  am  bound,  unless  I  disregard  the  will  of  the 
good  people  of  the  Forty-first  Assembly  District,  to  vote  for 
Albert  G.  Spalding  for  United  States  Senator.  To  do  other- 
wise would  be,  in  my  humble  opinion,  a  base  repudiation  of 
the  law,  and  an  evidence  of  flagrant  disrespect  to  the  wishes 
of  my  constituents.  I  have  been  too  long  honored  by  the 
people  of  my  district  to  close  my  ears  to  their  voices.  They 
have  cast  my  vote  for  me  here.  I  know  of  nothing  that  I 
have  oftener  wished  for  than  an  expression  of  opinion  by  my 
own  people  on  the  many  questions  that  have  been  here  pro- 
pounded in  the  last  seven  years,  and  I  am  content. 


Assemblyman  Slater — I  believe,  and  have  always  believed, 
in  the  election  of  United  States  Senators  by  direct  vote  of 
the  people,  and  consider  this  step  initial  to  the  accomplish- 


XXXV 


ment   of   the    final   issue.      Consequently,    I   vote    for   Judge 
Works.     Let  us  now  have  the  Oregon  plan. 


Assemblyman  Mendenhall — Having  always  believed  in 
the  election  of  United  States  Senators  by  direct  vote  of  the 
people,  and  as  Works  received  the  plurality  of  such  vote  in 
the  State,  I  deem  it  my  duty  in  the  interests  of  good  govern- 
ment to  vote  for  Judge  Works  for  United  States  Senator. 


Assemblyman  Walsh — Believing  the  last  State  primary 
election  gave  the  nearest  expression  possible  toward  a  State- 
wide vote  for  United  States  Senator  in  casting  a  plurality  vote 
for  Judge  Works,  and  as  the  Democratic  platform,  the  plat- 
form of  the  party  of  which  I  have  the  honor  to  represent, 
expressed  themselves  in  no  uncertain  terms  as  favoring  the 
election  of  a  United  States  Senator  by  direct  vote  of  the 
people,  I  therefore  cast  my  vote  for  Judge  Works,  feeling 
that  I  am  carrying  out  the  expressions  of  my  party  with  the 
best  means  at  hand. 


TABLES  OF  VOTES. 

The  principal  criticism  of  "The  Story  of  the  California 
Legislature  of  1909"  was  that  the  test  votes  were  arbitrarily 
selected. 

Such  contention  is  not  unreasonable,  but  it  is  indisputable 
that  certain  issues  before  the  public  are  recognized  as  either 
fundamental,  or  so  far-reaching  that  large  numbers  are  inter- 
ested in  them  one  way  or  the  other.  Further,  it  is  unques- 
tionably true  that  at  the  1909  session  of  the  Legislature, 
on  fundamental  questions,  the  lines  were  sharply  drawn  be- 
tween that  element  known  as  the  machine  on  the  one  side, 
and  its  opponents  on  the  other.  The  votes  on  these 
dividing  questions,  were  selected  as  the  tests  by  which  the 
1909  Legislature  was  to  be  measured. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection,  that  every  re- 
form included  in  the  list  of  test  issues  upon  which  the  1909 
tables  were  based,  was  realized  at  the  1911  session  of  the 
Legislature. 

Thus  the  1909  tables  include  the  vote  on  racetrack  gam- 
bling, the  vote  on  the  provision  of  the  Direct  Primary  bill  to 
grant  The  People  State-wide  practical  expression  of  their 
choice  for  United  States  Senators,  the  vote  on  the  pass- 
age of  the  Local  Option  bill,  the  vote  on  the  restoration  of 
the  Australian  ballot  to  its  original  simplicity  and  effective- 
ness, the  vote  on  the  Initiative  amendment,  the  vote  on  a 
practical  Railroad  Regulation  bill,  and  the  vote  on  the 
measure  to  take  the  judiciary  out  of  politics. 

Justification  of  the  1909  tables  is  found  in  the  realization 
of  these  reforms  in  1911.  And  then  again,  the  tables  were  so 
arranged  in  1909 — an  arrangement  which  has  been  followed 
this  year — as  to  carry  their  own  correction,  if  the  reader 
deemed  such  correction  necessary.  Thus,  if  the  reader  holds 
to  a  view  that  The  People  should  not  have  the  means  to  a 
direct  vote  for  United  States  Senator,  if  he  believes  that 
13 


anti-racetrack  gambling  legislation  is  unwarranted  and  that 
gambling  hells  such  as  were  operated  at  Emeryville  are 
justifiable;  if  he  believes  that  through  corruption  of  the 
Australian  ballot  The  People  should  be  denied  intelligent  ex- 
pression of  their  purposes  at  the  polls;  if  he  believes  that  the 
various  communities  should  be  denied  the  privilege  of  say- 
ing whether  or  not  they  want  to  license  saloons;  if  he  holds 
to  the  theory  that  the  people  should  not  be  permitted  to 
initiate  laws,  then  all  that  he  has  to  do  with  these  tables  is 
to  call  the  star  which  is  intended  to  represent  a  vote  for 
Progressive  policies,  a  vote  against  progress  and  reform;  and 
to  count  the  circle,  which  in  these  tables  stands  for  a  vote 
against  progress  and  reform,  a  vote  for  stability  and  good 
government.  The  tables,  therefore,  in  the  hands  of  a  reader 
out  of  sympathy  with  the  Progressive  movement,  correct 
themselves,  and  if  in  the  designation  of  any  of  the  votes  the 
reader  finds  what  he  regards  as  an  injustice,  he  has  before 
him  the  data  to  correct  the  injustice.  All  he  has  to  do  is  to 
call  what  is  marked  a  good  vote  a  bad  vote,  and  what  is 
down  as  a  bad  vote,  a  good  vote.  There  is  no  intention, 
therefore,  to  say,  arbitrarily,  what  is  right  and  what  is  wrong. 
The  data  are  furnished  the  reader,  however,  from  which  he 
can  estimate  the  records  of  the  various  members  of  the 
Legislature  for  himself. 


TABLES  I  AND  II,  SENATE  AND  ASSEMBLY  TEST 
VOTES. 

The  subjects  of  test  votes  selected  for  the  tables  of  the 
1911  review,  include  such  legislation  as  was  pledged  in  the 
Republican  and  Democratic  platforms,  and  legislation  which 
deals  with  moral  issues  such  as  racetrack  gambling  and 
Local  Option.  To  these  have  been  added,  in  the  Senate  table, 
the  vote  which  relieved  Senator  Cassidy  from  the  necessity 
of  explaining,  under  cross-examination,  his  absence  from  the 
Senate  Chamber  when  the  Anti-Injunction  bill  was  under 


consideration  (see  chapter  XXIII),  and  Assembly  vote  K 
on  Chandler's  resolution,  condemning  the  "whitewashing" 
of  Lorimer  by  the  Federal  Senate. 

That  the  California  State  Senate  should  have  compelled 
Cassidy  to  explain  his  absence  before  a  competent  com- 
mittee, with  power  to  cross-examine,  was  contended  by  all 
who  followed  the  incident.  The  dignity,  if  not  the  honor, 
of  the  Senate  was  at  stake.  Instead  of  ascertaining  whether 
or  not  Cassidy  should  be  punished  for  contempt  of  the 
Senate,  he  was  relieved  of  even  the  necessity  of  making  an 
explanation.  The  explanation  that  he  did  make,  such  as  it 
was,  was  made  voluntarily,  without  opportunity  being  given 
for  cross-examination. 

Chandler's  resolution  condemning  the  "whitewashing"  of 
Lorimer,  reflected  the  attitude  of  the  Progressives  on  the 
question  of  corruption  in  politics.  The  vote  on  this  resolu- 
tion was,  in  a  measure,  the  most  significant  test  vote  taken 
in  the  Assembly. 

The  records  of  the  members  of  the  1911  Senate  on  20 
test  votes  are  shown  in  table  I;  the  records  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Assembly  on  18  test  votes  are  shown  in  table  II. 

The  votes  in  the  columns  marked  A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  F,  G, 
H,  I,  L,  M,  N,  O,  P  and  Q,  cover  the  same  subject  in 
each  table. 

SENATE  AND  ASSEMBLY  VOTES. 

Columns  A,  Senate  and  Assembly,  show  the  votes  on  the 
Eshleman  Railroad  Regulation  bill.  See  Chapter  XI. 

Columns  B,  Senate  and  Assembly,  show  the  votes  on 
Constitutional  Amendment  to  make  clear  the  power  of  the 
Railroad  Commission.  See  Chapter  XL 

Columns  C,  Senate  and  Assembly,  show  the  votes  on 
Assembly  bill  888,  which  permits  the  manufacture  at  State's 
prisons,  of  furniture  for  the  use  of  public  institutions.  See 
Chapter  XXVII. 

Columns  D,  Senate  and  Assembly,  show  the  votes  on  the 
Initiative  Amendment.  See  Chapter  VII. 

Columns  E,  Senate  and  Assembly,  show  the  votes  on  the 


XXXIX 

motion  to  exclude  the  judiciary  from  the  provisions  of  the 
Recall. 

Column  F  shows  the  votes  on  the  Recall  Amendment 
itself.  See  Chapter  VIII. 

Columns  G,  Senate  and  Assembly,  show  the  votes  on  the 
motions  in  Senate  and  Assembly  to  substitute  the  township 
unit  of  prohibition  in  the  Local  Option  bill.  This  was 
clearly  the  test  vote  on  Local  Option.  See  Chapters  XV, 
XVI,  XVII. 

Columns  H,  Senate  and  Assembly,  show  the  votes  on  the 
Walker-Young  Anti-Racetrack  Gambling  bill.  See  Chapter 
XIV. 

Columns  I,  Senate  and  Assembly,  show  the  votes  on  the 
Equal  Suffrage  Amendment.  See  Chapter  XXVII. 

Columns  L,  Senate  and  Assembly,  show  the  votes  on  the 
measure  to  restore  the  Australian  Ballot  to  its  original 
simplicity  and  effectiveness.  See  Chapter  VI. 

Columns  M,  Senate  and  Assembly,  show  the  votes  on  the 
Short  Ballot  bill  to  make  the  office  of  the  State  Printer 
appointive.  See  Chapter  XXVII. 

Columns  N,  Senate  and  Assembly,  show  the  votes  on 
the  bill  to  have  the  State  capitol  and  grounds  brought  under 
responsible  management.  See  Chapter  XXVII. 

Columns  O,  Senate  and  Assembly,  show  the  votes  on 
Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  No.  26,  which  does  away 
with  reversals  in  criminal  cases  on  mere  technicalities.  See 
Chapter  XXVII. 

Columns  P,  Senate  and  Assembly,  show  the  votes  on 
the  bill  to  make  the  Bank  Commissioner's  tenure  of  office 
at  the  pleasure  of  the  Governor.  See  Chapter  XXVII. 

Columns  Q,  Senate  and  Assembly,  show  the  votes  on 
Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  No.  5,  granting  to  counties 
the  advantages  of  home  rule. 


xl 
SENATE  VOTES. 

Column  J,  Senate  table,  shows  the  vote  on  Senator 
Wright's  amendment  to  the  Direct  Primary  measure,  as  is 
explained  in  Chapter  V. 

Column  K,  Senate  table,  shows  the  vote  on  the  Direct 
Primary  measure,  as  explained  in  Chapter  V. 

Column  R,  Senate  table,  shows  the  vote  on  Senator 
Curtin's  amendment  to  the  Conservation  bill,  as  explained 
in  Chapter  XII. 

Column  S,  Senate  table,  shows  the  vote  on  the  Conserva- 
tion bill  (A.  B.  788)  which,  while  it  was  not  the  most  im- 
portant Conservation  bill  before  the  Legislature,  was  the 
one  over  which  opposition  developed.  See  Chapter  XII. 

Column  T,  Senate  table,  shows  the  vote  by  which  Senator 
Cassidy  was  relieved  of  the  necessity  of  explaining,  under 
cross-examination,  his  disappearance  from  the  Senate  Cham- 
ber at  the  time  the  Anti-Injunction  bill  was  under  dis- 
cussion. See  Chapter  XXIII. 

ASSEMBLY  VOTES. 

Column  J,  Assembly  table,  shows  the  vote  in  the  Assem- 
bly on  the  Direct  Primary  measure.  See  Chapter  V. 

Column  K,  Assembly  table,  shows  the  vote  on  Chandler's 
resolution,  condemning  the  action  of  the  Federal  Senate  in 
"whitewashing"  Lorimer. 

Column  R,  Assembly  table,  shows  the  vote  on  the  Con- 
servation bill  (A.  B.  788),  as  described  in  Chapter  XII. 


RECORDS  ON  LOCAL  OPTION. 

Table  VI  shows  the  records  of  Senators  on  the  Local 
Option  bill,  and  table  V,  the  records  of  Assemblymen  on 
the  same  measure.  See  Chapters  XV,  XVI,  XVII. 


xli 

VOTES  ON  LABOR  ISSUES. 

Table  III  includes  20  so-called  Labor  measures  voted 
upon  in  the  Senate;  Table  IV  shows  19  Labor  measures 
voted  upon  in  the  Assembly. 

The  first  16  votes  of  each  table — Columns  A  to  P  in- 
clusive— cover  the  same  subjects.  Owing  to  the  different 
treatment  of  the  Eight-Hour  bill  in  Senate  and  Assembly, 
and  the  fact  that  the  Compulsory  Arbitration  bill  (S.  B. 
918)  did  not  come  to  a  vote  in  the  Assembly  at  all,  the  last 
four  votes  in  the  Assembly  table  do  not  deal  with  the  same 
issues  as  the  last  five  of  the  Senate  table. 

Although  column  M  of  the  Senate  table  shows  a  direct 
vote  for  the  Anti-Injunction  bill  (S.  B.  965),  while  the  Assem- 
bly vote  M  is  merely  a  vote  to  make  the  measure  a  matter 
of  urgency,  still  the  votes  of  individual  members  of  the  two 
Houses  had  practically  the  same  effect  for  or  against  the 
measure  in  both  cases.  See  Chapter  XXIII. 

As  there  are  80  members  of  the  Assembly,  and  19  Labor 
measures  are  included  in  the  Assembly  table,  the  possible 
total  vote  on  the  19  measures  was  1520. 

Of  the  possible  1520  votes,  1012  were  cast  for  the  bills, 
while  116  were  cast  against  them.  This  leaves  392  un- 
accounted for.  In  other  words,  on  these  19  Labor  bills  con- 
sidered in  the  Assembly,  nearly  one-third  of  the  votes  that 
could  have  been  cast  for  or  against  them  were  not  cast. 

In  the  Senate,  of  the  possible  800  votes  on  the  20  sub- 
jects included  in  the  Senate  table,  529  were  cast  for  Labor 
policies,  only  79  against,  while  192  votes  were  not  cast 
at  all. 

By  comparing  this  total  "vote  with  the  tables  of  test 
votes  (Table  I  for  the  Senate,  and  Table  II  for  the  Assem- 
bly) it  will  be  seen  that  the  number  of  failures  to  vote  on 
Labor  issues  is  suggestive. 

In  the  Assembly,  for  example,  there  was  a  possible  total 
vote  of  1440  for  the  18  test  votes.  Of  these  1440  votes,  1031 


were  cast  for  Progressive  policies,  and  132  against,  leaving 
277  which  were  not  cast  at  all. 

Ta  be  sure,  the  Assembly  table  of  Labor  votes  includes 
19  subjects,  while  the  Assembly  test  votes  given,  number 
18  only.  However,  the  unaccounted-for  392  Assembly  votes 
on  Labor  issues  are  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  277  Assem- 
bly votes  on  test  questions. 

This  is  even  more  strikingly  illustrated  in  the  Senate. 
The  Senate  table  of  test  votes  includes  the  same  number 
as  the  Senate  table  showing  votes  on  Labor  issues.  The 
possible  total  vote  in  each  case  is  800. 

But  the  table  of  test  votes  shows  that  of  the  800,  572 
were  cast  for  Progressive  policies  and  111  against,  while  only 
117  votes  are  unaccounted  for. 

As  has  been  seen,  the  unaccounted-for  votes  on  Labor 
issues  shown  in  the  Senate  table  is  192. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  studies  of  the  tables  show- 
ing Labor  votes,  is  to  note  those  members  who  failed  to 
vote  on  Labor  issues. 

This  can  be  done  readily  by  studying  the  figures  under 
the  head  of  "totals"  at  the  right  of  the  table.  The  first 
column  of  figures  shows  the  vote  for  policies  supported  by 
the  Labor  lobby;  the  second  column  shows  the  vote  against 
policies  supported  by  the  Labor  lobby;  while  the  third  column 
shows  the  number  of  times  the  member  did  not  vote 
on  these  issues. 

The  names  of  the  members  of  Senate  and  Assembly  are 
arranged  alphabetically  in  these  tables.  By  a  curious  co- 
incident, No.  17  is  Senator  Finn  of  San  Francisco,  the  well- 
known  Union  Labor  party  politician;  while  No.  18,  under 
the  alphabetical  arrangement,  is  Senator  Gates,  who  is  con- 
demned, as  an  opponent  of  Labor  measures,  in  the  report 
of  the  Labor  representatives  who  attended  the  1911  session, 
and  which  was  issued  by  The  California  State  Federation  of 
Labor.  However,  on  the  20  votes  on  Labor  issues  included 
in  the  Senate  table,  Senator  Gates  voted  13  times  for  the 
policies  as  supported  by  the  Labor  lobby;  he  voted  six  times 
against  such  policies;  he  was  absent  on  one  roll  call  only. 


xliii 

On  the  other  hand,  Senator  Finn  voted  10  times  for  the 
policies  supported  by  the  Labor  lobby,  which  was  3  times 
less  than  did  the  so-called  enemy  of  labor,  Gates.  Senator 
Finn  is  shown  to  have  voted  only  once  against  these  poli- 
cies, but  on  9  roll  calls  he  is  not  recorded  as  voting. 

For  subject  matter  of  votes  shown  under  columns  B, 
C,  D,  E,  F,  G,  H,  I  and  J,  Senate  and  Assembly  tables, 
see  Chapter  XVIII,  "Labor  and  The  Legislature." 

For  columns  A  and  K,  Senate  and  Assembly  tables,  see 
Chapter  XIX. 

For  columns  L,  Senate  and  Assembly  tables,  see  Chap- 
ter XXII. 

For  columns  M,  Senate  and  Assembly  tables,  see  Chap- 
ter XXIII. 

For  columns  N,  O  and  P,  Senate  and  Assembly  tables,  see 
Chapter  XVIII. 

For  column  Q,   Senate  table,   see  Chapter  XXI. 

For  column  Q,  Assembly  table,  see  Chapter  XVIII. 

For  columns  R  and  S,  Senate  and  Assembly  tables,  and 
T,  Senate  Table,  see  Chapter  XX. 

It  is  not  pretended  that  every  vote  on  every  labor  issue 
before  the  Legislature  is  included  in  these  tables.  But  the 
votes  that  are  shown  include  those  on  the  principal  issues 
other  than  political  for  which  Labor,  through  its  duly  accred- 
ited representatives,  contended  at  the  1911  session  of  the 
Legislature. 

This  statement  is  borne  out  by  the  report  on  Labor  meas- 
ures considered  at  the  1911  session  of  the  California  Legis- 
lature, issued  by  the  California  State  Federation  of  Labor. 
A  copy  of  that  report  can  be  had  by  addressing  the  Sec- 
retary of  that  organization,  Labor  Temple,  316  14th  Street, 
San  Francisco. 


TABLES 


Table  I — Record  of  Senators, 


A 


Vote  on  Eshleman  R.  R.  Reg. 
Bill. 

Vote  on  constitutional  amend- 
ment to  make  clear  power  of 
R.  R.  Commission. 

To  permit  manufacture  at  State 
Prisons  of  furniture  for  public 
use. 

Vote  on  Initiative  amendment. 

•3 
*< 

i 

<u 
X 
<D 

2g 

C  ?> 
0  ^ 

ss 

S2 

§; 

O  rf 

r° 

Vote  on  Recall  amendment. 

Vote  on  amendment  to  Local 
Option  bill  to  make  township 
unit. 

Vote  on  Walker-Young  Anti- 
Racetrack  Gambling  bill. 

Vote  on  Woman  Suffrage  amend- 
ment. 

Vote  on  Wright's  amendment  to 
Direct  Primary  measure. 

Senators        |Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||A  e|No||Aye|No 

A.vey    

* 
* 
• 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
• 

0 

0 

0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
• 
* 

* 
* 

* 

Beban    

Bell    

Bills    

Birdsall    

Black    

* 
* 
* 
• 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

0 

0 
0 
0 

* 
* 

* 
• 
* 
• 
* 

• 
* 
• 

* 

Boynton   
Bryant    
Burnett    
Caminetti    .  . 

"Campbell   .  .  . 
Cartwright    . 
Cassidy    
Curtin    

* 

* 
* 
• 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

Cutten    

Estudillo    ... 
Finn    

* 
* 
* 
• 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

0 
0 

* 
* 
* 

0 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

• 

n 

* 
* 

Gates    

Hans    

Hare    

Hewitt    
Holohan   
Hurd    

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 

0 
0 
0 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

.0 

* 

* 
* 

Juilliard  
Larkins    

Lewis    

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

0 

* 

* 
* 
* 

0 

0 
0 

0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

• 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

Martinelll    .  . 
Regan   

Roseberry    .  . 
Rush    

Sanf  ord   
Shanahan    .  . 
Stetson    
Strobridge  .. 
Thompson   .  . 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

• 
* 
• 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 

0 
0 

* 

* 
• 

* 
* 
* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
• 

* 

Tyrrell  
Walker  
Welch   

* 
* 
• 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

0 

0 
0 

* 
* 
* 

0 
0 

0 

0 

0 
0 

* 

* 
* 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

* 
* 

Wolfe    

Wright    

Totals     

33 

1130 

||24 

||  35|    1||  11 

29||  36 

4||  23 

17||30|    4||33 

B||     5 

2fi 

Character  "*"  indicates  vote  for  progressive  policies  and  reform. 
Character  "0"  indicates  vote  against  progressive  policies  and  reform, 
t  Made  motion  to  reconsider  vote. 


Session  191  1 ,  on  Twenty  Test  Votes. 


K      ||      L      ||      M      ||      N      II      0      ||       P     ||       Q      |1       R     ||      S       ||       T      || 

Vote  on  Direct  Primary  meas- 
ure. 

m 

% 
o> 

• 

o 

• 

2 
2o 

1* 

§1 

f>  d 
+j  >- 
O*-1 

Si, 
3 

5  ^ 
2® 

°l 

«| 
£<« 

is 

ffie  . 
c°2 

O  a)U 

Ma 

jl& 

Vote  on  bill  to  put  State  Capi- 
tol and  grounds  under  re- 
sponsible management. 

Vote  on  S.  C.  A.  26  —  Reversals 
in  criminal  cases. 

Vote  on  bill  to  make  Bank  Com- 
missioner hold  office  at  pleas- 
ure of  Governor. 

Vote  on  S.  C.  A.  5—  Granting 

• 

O 

c 
p 

0 
0 

0 

4> 
p 

0) 

s 

o 
q 

Vote  on  Curtin  amendment  to 
A.  B.  788—  Conservation  bill. 

00 
00 

c- 

w 
<i 

o 

0> 

o 

t> 

Vote  on  motion  that  would  have 
put  Senator  Cassidy  on  his  de- 
fense. 

TOTALS. 

For  Progressive  Policies. 

Against  Progressive  Policies. 

0> 
CO 

ft 
*t 

Aye 

No||Aye|No[|Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye 

No|jAye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||AyelNoj; 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

0 
0 

0 

• 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

0 

18 
12 
19 
14 
18 

1 

3 

2 
1 

1 
5 
1 
4 
1 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

* 

*,. 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

•*• 

0 
0 
0 

18 
18 
16 
14 
15 

1 

2 
2 
1 
3 

1 

2 
5 

2 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

0 
0 

* 

* 
* 

a 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

0 
0 

4 

* 
* 
* 

•  »• 

0 
0 

0 

15 
11 
11 
'  9 
15 

1 

1 
7 
7 
1 

4 
8 
2 
4 
4 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

0 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

• 

* 
* 
* 

* 
•  * 

;q 

0 

12 
'    8 
20 
9 
11 

1 
6 

5 
2 

7 
6 

6 

7 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

0 
0 

* 
* 
* 

»  • 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

;0 

0 

1  15 
17 
15 
16 
15 

1 
2 
3 
3 
1 

4 
1 
2 

1 
4 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

0 

* 

* 
* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

6 

0 
0 

* 
• 
* 

* 
* 

* 

* 

* 

0 
0 
0 

0 

16 
11 
13 
17 
17 

1 

8 
4 
1 
3 

3 

1 
3 
2 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

0 
0 

* 
* 
* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 
*' 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

*t 

* 

* 
* 

0 
0 

* 
• 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

0 
0 

11 
18 
17 
16 
18 

5 
2 
2 
1 
1 

"4 

1 
3 
1 

*  - 
* 

* 
* 

:  '. 

* 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 

0 

* 

* 
* 

6 

0 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

0 

0 

* 
* 
* 

* 

0 

0 
0 

* 
• 

* 

* 
* 

* 

0 
0 
0 

0 

16 
18 
12 
3 
g 

2 
1 
2 
12 
9 

'  2 
1 
6 
5 
3 

33--I--  II  34 

|21 

nil  so 

5||34 

II    32|  2  ||  29 

2  ||  17 

20||  31 

II  15  |21  ||572  (111   |117 

Character  "*"  indicates  vote  for  progressive  policies  and  reform. 
Character  "0"  indicates  vote  against  progressive  policies  and  reform. 
t  Made  motion  to  reconsider  vote. 


Table  II— Records  of  Assemblymen, 


F     ||     Q 


i 

•00 

Sf 

ts 

•3 

o"S 

C 

•o 

I 

i| 
3| 

CQ& 

4-1  - 

a 

•o 

- 

a 

c 
g 

i 

22 

& 

i 

p; 

c  b 

a  u 

i 

if 

M 

« 

*.* 

o  *" 

d 

°  »  c 

3  3 

a* 

V 

G 

cea 

><= 

fi 

on  Eshelmar 
1. 

on  constitut 
nt  to  make  cl 
R.  Commissio: 

O  ^ 

11 

!° 

on  Initiative 

2=5 
|1 

3s 
as 

VI 

ge 

a 

i 
"3 

u 

« 

0 

a£ 

•o  _ 

gf 

oSS 

gn 

OQ    . 

on  Walker- 
cetrack  Gamb! 

on  Woman  Sul 
nt. 

4)    w* 

4)  Q) 

ft*L*  o 

© 

®  cS 

• 

<D  ft*c 

0>  oj 

4)  4) 

"oM 

"S  £ei 

~  —  ~ 

"o 

"o"3 

o 

003 

f« 

"S  a 

t> 

> 

g 

b> 

> 

t> 

t> 

t> 

Assemblymen     |Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|Xo||Aye|No||Aye|No|Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|Xo||Aye|No 


Beatty   

* 

* 

• 

* 

• 

0 

• 

Beckett  

* 

* 

• 

* 

• 

Benedict  

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

* 

• 

Bennink    

* 

• 

* 

0 

* 

* 

Bishop  

• 

* 

0 

0 

* 

* 

Bliss   

* 

• 

* 

0 

* 

* 

* 

n 

Bohnett  

* 

* 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Brown   .    ........ 

• 

* 

• 

0 

n 

• 

• 

Butler   

• 

• 

• 

* 

* 

• 

• 

Callaghan  

* 

• 

• 

0 

• 

Cattell   

* 

• 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Chandler  

• 

* 

• 

• 

o 

Clark    

• 

* 

• 

• 

• 

Coghlan     

0 

n 

» 

Cogswell  

* 

* 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Cronin   

• 

* 

* 

0 

0 

• 

• 

Crosby  

* 

* 

* 

0 

0 

• 

• 

Cunningham  .... 
Denegri  

* 

* 
* 

• 
• 

• 
* 

o 

0 

• 
n 

Parwell   

* 

• 

* 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Feeley   

* 

* 

* 

• 

n 

Fitzgerald    

* 

* 

• 

• 

Flint   

• 

* 

• 

• 

* 

• 

0 

Freeman   

• 

* 

• 

n 

• 

• 

• 

Gaylord  

* 

* 

• 

• 

0 

• 

Gerdes    

* 

* 

• 

• 

* 

Griffln    

• 

* 

* 

• 

• 

0 

* 

Griffiths   

n 

* 

• 

* 

Guill       

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Hall    

• 

0 

0 

• 

• 

Hamilton    
Harlan    

* 
* 

* 
• 

0 

• 

• 

o 

* 
* 

• 
• 

Hayes    

• 

* 

0 

Held   

• 

• 

* 

* 

o 

Hewitt    

* 

* 

* 

* 

Hinkle   

* 

• 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Hinshaw  

* 

* 

* 

* 

• 

* 

Jasper  

• 

* 

• 

• 

• 

* 

Jones    

* 

* 

o 

o 

o 

* 

Joel    

* 

• 

• 

• 

0 

* 

Totals    |   27| 


28 


36 


12  |  28||  32  |    8||  10  |  28||  30 


36 


Character  "•"  indicates  vote  for  progressive  policies  and  reform. 
Character  "0"  Indicates  vote  against  progressive  policies  and  reform, 
t  Made  motion  to  reconsider  vote. 


Session  1 9 1  1 ,  on  18  Test  Votes. 


J      II      K      ||      L      ||      M      ||      N      ||      0      ||       P     ||      Q     ||      R      || 

meas- 

go 
q3 
3  bo 
"35 

01 

3 

oi 

2  ^ 

§J 

+J.Q 

0/3 
oi  C 

OO 

versals 

O  4) 

bo 
c 

_0 

TOTALS. 

oi 

V 

K 

j 

c 

'-  01 

K 

°  <D 

V 

M 

oi 

2 

01  <u 

1«S 

£ 

o 

i* 

Sj 

CO 

is 

se  . 

1| 

6 

|« 

I 

<s> 

£ 

s2 

V 

oi 

s"^ 

;    0) 

•d°* 

<jj  § 

oi 

£ 

> 

«j 

o 

V 

5 

o 

Vote  on  Chand 
condemning  w 
Lo  rimer. 

i-i 

5* 

4 

*| 

!>*" 

|§ 
O  fl)^j 

•*.s 

Cbflri 
O       q 

7    03 
.    O 

O  ^ 

a 

02  S 

oT. 
o 

Vote  on  bill  to  m 
missioner  hold 
ure  of  Govern* 

do 
ofi| 

O  0) 

s] 

if 

00 

t- 

M 

o 

For  Progressive 

Against  Progress 

Absent. 

Aye|No||Aye|No||AyeiNo||Aye|No||Aye|No||A.ye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No| 


* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

14 
16 
16 
13 
10 

2 

3 

4 

2 
2 
2 
2 
4 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 

* 

* 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

13 
17 
13 
17 
13 

2 
4 
1 

3 

1 
1 
1 
4 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 

*t 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

0 

* 
* 
* 

* 

0 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

17 
13 

16 
8 
17 

1 
4 

1 
4 

2 
6 

1 

* 
* 

* 

0 

* 
* 

0 
0 

* 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 

9 
11 

7 
10 
15 

3 
2 
5 
3 

6 
5 
6 
5 
3 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

0 
0 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

0 

* 
* 

0 

0 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

* 

10 
11 
15 
15 
13 

4 

1 
3 

2 

4 
7 
2 

3 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

0 
0 

* 
* 

* 

0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

11 
16 
9 
15 

8 

1 
1 
3 

3 

6 
1 
6 
3 

7 

* 

* 
* 

* 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

13 
11 
11 
14 
16 

1 
2 
3 
1 

4 

5 
4 
3 
2 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

15 
17 
15 
12 

14 

1 
3 
1 

3 
1 
2 
3 
3 

29 


21  |    8||  29 


24  |  10||    28|    8||  28 


35 


30  |    2||    29  1 


526  |  64   |130 


Character  "*"  Indicates  vote  for  progressive  policies  and  reform. 
Character  "0"  indicates  vote  against  progressive  policies  and  reform, 
t  Made  motion  to  reconsider  vote. 


(Continued  on  Next  Page.) 


Table  II  Concluded — Records  of  Assemblymen, 


i 

• 

1° 

<y  o 

4 

% 

If 

•M 

•d 

C 

E^ 

M  ft 

0) 

E 

""* 

^j 

^  1 

3  < 

£ 

PJ 

1 

I1 

•0 

c 

V 

la. 

S 

s 
x 

a 
•o 

22 

*•  S 

r 

d 
0 

i 

O  Si  - 

cj 

o 

c 

M 

•4 

^H     ^     C 

o  3 

a)  ~ 

pH  ^ 

ti 

on  Eshelmai 
1. 

on  constitut 
nt  to  make  c! 
R.  Commissio 

ermit  manufai 
sons  of  furnit 
i. 

on  Initiative 

2=3 

si 

O  1* 

la 

S2 
?fc 

8 

d 

o 
tf 

a 
o 

gf 

°5  • 

„  ii 

on  Walker- 
setrack  Gamb 

on  Woman  Su 
nt. 

0  ^ 

0)  «    . 

«"££ 

<D 

®  d 

<0 

d)  d 

0>  4> 

|« 

'o  Stf 

a 

o 

'o'o 

-(-> 

o 

"SO  3 

o^ 

"o  S 

t> 

H 

t> 

> 

> 

> 

Assemblymen     IAye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No 


Judson  

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Kehoe    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Kennedy  

* 

* 

0 

0 

* 

Lamb   

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Lynch    

* 

* 

* 

0 

0 

0 

Lyon  of  L.  A  
Lyon  of  S.  F.  .  .  . 
Maher   

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 

0 
0 

n 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

Af  alone    

* 

* 

o 

* 

* 

March    

* 

* 

* 

0 

McDonald     

* 

* 

o 

* 

o 

McGowen   

* 

* 

* 

0 

* 

Mendenhall   
Mott  

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

Mullally    

* 

* 

0 

* 

Nolan     
Polsley    

* 

* 
* 

* 

* 

0 

• 

0 

* 

0 

Preisker   

* 

* 

* 

* 

Randall   

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Rimlinger   

* 

* 

0 

0 

Rodgers  of  S.  F.. 
Rogers  of  A  

* 

* 

* 

* 
* 

•  0 

n 

* 

* 

0 

Rosendale    

* 

* 

n 

n 

* 

* 

Rutherford    
Ryan    

* 

* 
* 

* 

* 
• 

0 

* 

0 

* 

Sbragia  

* 

* 

* 

0 

0 

Schmitt  

o 

n 

n 

* 

0 

Slater    

* 

• 

* 

n 

* 

* 

Smith    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Stevenot  

* 

* 

* 

0 

* 

* 

* 

Stuckenbruck  .  .  . 
Sutherland   
Telfer  

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

0 

* 
0 

0 
0 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

Tibbits    

* 

* 

o 

* 

* 

Walker   

* 

0 

0 

0 

* 

Walsh    

* 

* 

0 

* 

* 

Williams    

« 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Wilson    

* 

* 

* 

* 

n 

* 

* 

Wyllie   

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Young    

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Totals    
Forward     

20 
27 

1  28 
I  29 

1  28 
1  28 

1  35 
|  36 

1  8 

1  12 

31 
28 

38 
32 

2 

s 

I  23 

1  10 

15 
2S! 

1  28 
|  30 

t 

131 
1  35 

7 
5 

Grand   Totals..)   47| 


57 


56 


71 


20  |  59||  70  |  10||  33  |  43||  58  |    5||  66  |  12 


Character  "*"  indicates  vote  for  progressive  policies  and  reform. 
Character  "0"  indicates  vote  against  progressive  policies  and  reform, 
t  Made  motion  to  reconsider  vote. 


Session  1 9 1  1 ,  on  1 8  Test  Votes. 


K 


1 

o° 

3 

2& 

o5 

"3 

SB 
«  * 

M 

o 

TOTALS. 

g 

"S  Sffl 

-  1, 

a!  C 

£ 

n-2 

C 

09 

o.S 

ID 

S« 

GO 

^ 

B 

E 

Primary 

er's  res 
hitewash 

a 
£ 

o 

«  BJ 

•4->  m 

d£ 
a^fe 

3fi 

L.  26—  Re 
es. 

§^ 

«s 

se  . 
d°s 

A.  5—  G 
ounties. 

8  —  Conse 

Policies. 

_O 

2 
5 

«j 

o 

£ 

|» 

5^ 

£S 

1* 

a§ 

2mc 

•^•o  5 

.  0 

£2£ 

o  2  * 
-w^:  > 

oo 
i» 

n 

• 
"Z 

in 

02 

I 
60 

s 
§ 

<»£ 

03 

ote  on  C 
condemnir 
Lorimer. 

+->  t-< 

®  $  4J 

-^  B 

®So 
o  2  ft 

ote  on  bill 
and  groun 
managerru 

•  g 

o  — 

ote  on  bill 
mlssioner 
ure  of  Go 

o  ® 
5JJ 

«! 

G 

o 

®s 

0^ 

or  Progres 

2 

P4 
*J 
tn 

B 

"3 

tl 

bsent. 

> 

> 

^> 

> 

2 

> 

g 

!> 

b 

<: 

<! 

Aye|No||Ayc|Xo||Aye|Xo||Aye|No||Aye|No||AyejNo||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No|| 


* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

0 

• 
* 
* 

* 
* 

0 
0 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

.* 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 

17 
16 
11 
17 
7 

1 
4 

5 

1 
1 
3 
1 
6 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
• 

* 

0 

* 
* 
* 

* 

n 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

0 

* 
* 

* 
* 

15 
14 
11 
14 
7 

1 

2 
2 

1 
4 

2 
2 
5 
3 

7 

* 
• 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
-• 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

0 

* 

* 
* 

0 

* 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

13 
12 
17 
18 
6 

2 
1 

3 

3 
5 

1 

9 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

• 

• 
* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

1 

* 
* 

r 

* 
* 
* 

* 

8 
16 
15 
16 

7 

3 
3 

7 
2 
3 
2 

8 

* 
* 

* 

* 

• 

0 

1 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
• 

n 

0 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
• 

* 
• 
* 
* 

8 
11 
14 
13 
11 

3 
2 
3 

4 

7 
5 
1 
5 
3 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

It 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

0 

* 

* 
* 
* 

6 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

11 
5 
16 
18 
13 

4 
6 
1 

1 

3 

7 

1 

4 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

0 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

12 
12 
15 
13 
4 

2 
2 

1 
4 

4 
4 
3 
4 
10 

* 
* 

* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

• 
* 
* 
* 

i 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

* 
* 
* 
* 

0 

* 
* 
* 
* 

8 
14 
17 
15 

18 

2 
1 

8 
4 

3 

25 
29 

II  23 

II  21 

811  28 
8||  29 

II  22 
II  24 

1111   31 
10||    28 

21127 
8||  28 

II  34 
II  35 

1129 
II  30 

311   32 

2||    29 

[1  505 
I)  526 

68 
64 

14Y 
130 

54 

1144 

16I|  57 

II  46 

21||    591  1011  55 

II  69 

||  59       5||    61|       ||1031  |132  |277 

Character  "*"  indicates  vote  for  progressive  policies  and  reform. 

Character  "0"  indicates  vote  against  progressive  policies  and  reform. 

t  Made  motion  to  reconsider  vote. 

j  The  original  journal  of  March  15th,  page  16,  shows  that  Williams  voted 
for  this  bill.  The  corrected  journal  of  the  same  date,  page  2074,  does  not 
include  his  name  among  those  who  voted  for  this  measure. 


Table  III — Records  of  Senators, 


A      ||      B 


1       || 


\ 

G° 

SI 

eg 

iBO 

| 

O 

gri 

O 

4-1 

1 

£S 

^ 

"3  ® 

is 

3P 

i5 
B 

la 

O 

•^ 

S 

s 

P  fe    . 

a    m 

%  Q 

D1*"1 

r 

5  0) 

13 

T3 

<u   -<o 

S.  B.  14—  Ro 
rs'  Liability  A 

••°i 

S.  B.  163—  Re 
of  employes  in 
juivalent. 

j: 

^j»  <D 

J  . 

rf  i 

« 

< 

L. 
P 

'ja 

'     S 

^'£ 
O    " 

i 

•Sj 
M 

M 

w 

B.  1030—  Limi 
hours  of  duty 
yes  to  16. 

.  B.  795—  Provi 
tx>r  Bureaus. 

.  B.  269—  Provi 
pection. 

fs& 

J,'| 

s|| 

«5o 
"  oavi 

^"^ 

Vote  on 
Employe 

X!  5° 

C«* 

§s5 

2^ 

o  d-o 

Vote  on 
payment 
once  a  n 

8JT 

0 

^>& 
csE 

O  3  <O 

*SQJ 
O  01  K 

51 

0® 

•I 

o£ 

5 
o  ® 

|l 

Vote  on 
publicity 
advertisi 

Senators         |Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No|  |  Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|NoHAye|No||Aye|Xo 


1  Avey   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

2  Beban   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

3  Bell   

F 

A| 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

4  Bills    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

5  Birdsall   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6  Black   
7  Boynton    

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

8  Bryant  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

9  Burnett   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

10  Caminetti  .... 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

11  Campbell   
12  Cartwright  ... 
13  Cassidy  

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

14  Curtin    

F 

F 

F 

15  Cutten   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

16  Estudillo    
17  Finn    

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

18  Gates    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

19  Hans   

F 

F 

F 

F 

20  Hare    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

21  Hewitt   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

22  Holohan    
23  Hurd    

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

24  Juilliard    
25  Larkins    

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

26  Lewis    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

27  Martinelli   .... 
28  Regan   

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

29  Roseberry   .... 
30  Rush     

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 

31  Sanford   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

32  Shanahan   .... 
33  Stetson  .  
34  Strobridge   .... 
35  Thompson  — 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

A 

36  Tyrrell   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

37  Walker  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

38  Welch   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

39  Wolfe      

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

40  Wright    

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F» 

Totals 


36 


25  |  4  ||  29 


28 


I        II  <I1   I        II  91  I        II  91   I        II   91    I  9    II   94 

\      IIWJ      II  «•>  I      II  *•] II  "1  I  *  II  '* 


Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  policies  supported  by  the  Labor  Lobby. 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  policies  supported  by  the  Labor  Lobby. 
*  Made  motion  to  reconsider  vote. 


Session   1911,  on  Labor  Issues. 


K      ||      L     II      M      ||      N      ||      0     ||      P      ||     Q             R     ||      S      ||      T     || 

M  • 

V£ 

J 

O 

*-g 

6f3 

i_ 

<D 

a 

a 

TOTALS 

2—  Authorizil 
enact  a  con 
sation  law. 

16—  Directil 
books  be  fu 
hildren. 

65—  The  Ant 

• 

0 
I 

O 

oo 
oo 

5  —  Raising  ai 
•en  may  wo 

328—  Providli 
f  occupation 

.8  —  Compulso 

tee  Substitui 
:t-hour  Bill. 

ar  amendme 
3111. 

48—  Elght-ho 

E 

a 
A 

supported 

y. 

«,     c 

J        O 

at 

CO 

w2  • 

° 

o>s 

"5  ^ 

o 

<M 

•t.  — 

X  ~ 

Sus 

S 

m'S 

M'S 

•  43  iH 

pq  M 

m 

H 

s§ 

m 

•g 

•^i3 

°3« 

jeg 

02  § 

•<!§ 

<i-c° 

^j?  . 

ra-2 

o  1 
U^ 

£js 

,,; 

£  Q 

"OM 

lg 

(M 

£1 

.3  fc" 

M 

CO 

C  a 

c-S7"1 

c  o?S 

c  2 

C 

C  bo 

c 

"3  t* 

«rt 

o-  g 

°*J^ 

0  C 

3 

0  0 

0  £  g 

0) 

ot! 

°m 

°H 

0 

fl 

fi^ 

C 

<U  CJ  3 

*  J3-2 

o>c 

3)       O 

dJ  ti  W 

4J  u 

<D    . 

So 

$t3. 

cd 

*cd  ^ 

09 

|Ja 

O*""1 

O  ri«w 

|«2-o 

r 

1^ 

5** 

Is 

£ 

*# 

JS 

<< 

Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|Xo||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|NoHAye|Nol|Aye|No|| 


F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

A 
A 

F 
F 

P 
F 
F 
F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

14 
12 
14 
15 
14 

3 
1 
6 
2 
3 

3 

7 

3 
3 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

P 
F 
F 
P 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

15 
13 
16 
13 
17 

4 

5 
3 
4 
7 
3 

F 

F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

P 

F 

F 
F 

P 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

15 
11 
13 

8 
10 

1 
1 
1 

5 
9 
6 
11 

9 

F 

F 

A 
A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

V 

F 

A 
A 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

12 
10 
13 
10 
16 

2 
1 
6 

1 

6 
9 
1 
10 
3 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

A 
A 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

A 
A 
A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

12 
16 
9 
13 
13 

4 
4 
5 
2 
2 

4 

6 
5 
5 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

P 
P 
P 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

13 
15 
15 
12 
12 

1 

1 
5 
1 

7 
4 
4 
3 

7 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

A 
A 

F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

15 
18 
11 
14 

7 

3 
4 
6 

5 
2 
6 
2 
7 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

15 
16 
17 
13 
12 

1 
1 
1 
1 
5 

4 
3 
2 
6 
3 

27 


16 


22  |18  ||  30 


26 


25 


16|22||     5  |32  ||  14  |  24||  34  |  5||  529  |     79  |  192 


Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  policies  supported  by  the  Labor  Lobby. 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  policies  supported  by  the  Labor  Lobby. 
*  Made  motion  to  reconsider  vote. 


Table  IV — Records  of  Assemblymen 


A      ||      B      ||       C.  ||      D      ||       E      ||      F      ||       G     ||      H      ||       1. 

^ 

MO 

u»> 

;f  — 

too 

^ 

1     • 

h 

be 

(-, 

g+J 

e  * 

O 

C 

•^  r^ 

£  d 

£5 

o 

B 

*M 

OH 

ft! 

ro  j 

B 

i  *j 

47  —  Repeal 
i  it  crime 
o  desert. 

^0 

s|  . 

f 

M 

4  ._- 

9—  Forbidd 
between 
i. 

H 

u 

f 

rH 

jj 

-Provides 
aus. 

-Provides 

M   <U*J 

i-|2-y 

iq 

O  OrH 

i  ^ 

i 

«3 

"S 

•       C 

g-g 
nil 

«^5 

"f* 

IM 

CO 

0?  >- 

*  —  • 

cc  C 

IM  O 

_ 

s 

«M£ 

o  C 

W     us 

W 

ffl  °  S 

PQ  <* 

«1 

02  "2 

02  oo> 

»°& 

"^6 

022*0 

OQ 

<>S!  o 

._§ 

.  ft 

u   nn 

f  **> 

2  to 

r.«* 

j3 

3 

<;  *"S 

*s  t3 

1 

o  O 

fc  ID 

0*  M 

C  oj  ri 

C  £ 

C 

c1  'S  G 

_.  Hi 

c"1"* 

"a 

°        O 

°  c.2 

S  o> 

O    Q    g 

0 

O"S  S 

0  o 

o  o 

ill 

|lo 

o  H  n 

Is 

|1« 

ll 

l> 

£> 

!> 

!> 

t> 

t> 

>• 

£ 

>• 

Assemblymen     |Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|Xo||Aye|N< 


1  Beatty   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

2  Beckett   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

3  Benedict   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

4  Bennink   

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

5  Bishop    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6  Bliss    
7  Bohnett  .' 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

8  Brown  

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

9  Butler  

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

'  F 

10  Callaghan  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

11  Cattell    
12  Chandler    

A 
A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

13  Clark    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

14  Coghlan   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

15  Cogswell   

A 

F 

16  Cronin    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

17  Crosby  

A 

F 

F 

F 

18  Cunningham    .  .  . 
19  Denegri   

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

20  Farwell    

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

21  Feeley    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

22  Fitzgerald    
23  Flint   

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

24  Freeman    

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

25  Gaylord    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

26  Gerdes   

F 

F 

F 

27  Griffin    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

28  Griffiths     

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

29  Guill    

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

30  Hall   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

31  Hamilton    

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

32  Harlan    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

33  Hayes   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

34  Held    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

35  Hewitt  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

36  Hinkle   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

37  Hinshaw    

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

38  Jasper    

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

39  Jones    

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

40  Joel    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Totals   

25 

|23 

14| 

|28 

! 

|23 

1 

28 

1 

34 

1 

27 

1 

23 

2] 

|34 

Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  policies  supported  by  the  Labor  Lobby. 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  policies  supported  by  the  Labor  Lobby. 
*  Made  motion  to  reconsider  vote. 


Session  1911,  On  Labor  Issues 


M 


J»fi 
s  S  5 

^  (!) 


Stj1"^ 

Ji| 

co  o"S 
.  "*~^  W 

^ffS 

u$£ 
.JS 

MMQ 

d'Bs, 


16—  Di 
ooks  b 
Idren. 


t- 


-iS 
§i 

«  _ 
SP 


- 


Is 


O  w1" 


Bra 

£e 
|5 

la 
p^ 

l§ 

oo  O 


(D^CO  « 

>^ 


•s-s 


rQ   >> 


.s 


TOTALS 


d 


A.ve!Xo||Aje|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|Xo||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No|| 


F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

A 
A 
A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

A 
A 
A 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

13 
18 
10 
16 
9 

1 
5 
3 
3 

6 

4 
0 
7 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

Jf 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

14 
15 
16 
12 
14 

2 
2 

1 
5 

3 

2 
2 
2 
5 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

A 
A 
A 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

11 
10 
11 
11 
3 

5 
4 
2 

4 

3 

5 
6 
8 
12 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

F 
V 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

13 
8 
13 
14 

11 

1 
3 

4 

5 
8 
6 
5 
.  4 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 
A 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

16 
9 
13 
11 
11 

2 
4 

2 

3 
10 
4 
4 
6 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

10 
15 
14 
15 
13 

2 
2 
1 

9 
4 
3 
2 
5 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

" 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 
A 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

14 
13 
16 
11 
13 

3 
3 

2 
1 

2 
3 
3 
6 
5 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 
A 
A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

16 
10 
11 

8 
14 

1 
5 
2 
3 
1 

2 
4 
6 
8 
4 

29  |    6||  30  |    3||  27 


12  |  26||  31 


26 


23  I      ||  19  I    7||  20  |17||36 


495  I     79  |  186 


Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  policies  supported  by  the  Labor  Lobby. 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  policies  supported  by  the  Labor  Lobby. 
*  Made  motion  to  reconsider  vote. 

(Continued   on   next  page.) 


Table  IV  Concluded — Records  of  Assemblymen 


C     || 


b 

c*1 

ciu 

c2 

MO 

1 

Ctf 

E 

0 

g 

H 

•§« 

~>  ™ 

IS 

£ 

O 

^ 

4 

"" 

,C 

«  1 

.-  o 

3  g 

•3- 

2  § 

o 

m® 

• 

0) 

03 
0> 

CO  O 

C«._H    .! 

O*j_i 

ft  OJ 

t 

^ 

-0 

^ 

*!l 

09 

IV 

f 

Is 

II 

! 

it 

li 

I 

2 

•  oS 

«3 

Nrg3 

'         ri 

"Sc 

M  |"3 

^s 

«^5 

rH   u, 

04 

M 

CO 

o  a,  o 

K 
0 
t- 

• 
ll 

<n  -4 

to  B 

N  O 

•flS 

».,  > 

og 

US 

PQ  °  S 

a 

1  ** 

«1 

oig 

«2  °S 

•     o 

•  o>o 

oi 

."^  "*" 

__§ 

.  ft 

fli 

-u  O1 

«f  B 

d* 

-C  to 

^C« 

g 

o$ 

s?  *H* 

'j 

£ 

§2 
a 

§*g 

§13 

°i« 

§oc 

0 

§|I 

0  0) 

O  « 

«S 

SB 

111 

5  Is 

o  o-o 

So 

Is  o. 

C  ^H 

'o  <nP5 

«£ 

sl 

0  H 

Assemblymen    |Aye|No||Aje|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||A>-e|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|N 


41  J  udson   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

42  Kehoe  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

43  Kennedy  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

44  Lamb   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

45  Lynch  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

46  Lyon  of  L.  A.  .  . 
47  Lyon  of  S.  F  
48  Maher  

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

49  Malone    

F 

F 

F 

F 

50  March    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

51  McDonald  
52  McGowen   

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

53  Mendenhall    
54  Mott   

A 

f\ 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

55  Mullally  

F 

F 

F 

F 

56  Nolan   
67  Polsley   

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

58  Priesker    

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

59  Randall   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

60  Rlmlinger  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

61  Rodgers  of  S.  F. 
62  Rogers    of    A.  .  .  . 
63  Rosendale  

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

64  Rutherford   
65  Ryan    

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

66  Sbragia   
67  Schmitt  

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

68  Slater  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

69  Smith  

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

70  Stevenot   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

71  Stuckenbruck   .  . 
72  Sutherland  
73  Telfer    

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

74  Tibbits    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

75  Walker  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

76  Walsh   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

77  Williams  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

78  Wilson   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

79  Wyllie    

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

80  Young  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Totals   

S1 

I  10 

71 

I'5 

1 

19 

1 

?4 

1 

3? 

1 

ISO 

I 

?4  | 

1 

36 

Totals    for*w'd 

25 

I 

91 

£O 

1*1 

28 

1 

23 

1 

28 

1 

34 

1 

27 

1 

23  1 

2| 

34 

Grand    Totals.!  56  |      ||53|21||53|      ||  42  |      ||  62  |      ||  66 


57 


47  |    2||70| 


Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  policies  supported  by  the  Labor  Lobby. 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  policies  supported  by  the  Labor  Lobby. 
•  Made  motion  to  reconsider  vote. 


Session  1911,  On  Labor  Issues 


L     |       M 


Q 


m  C 

.as  . 

be^ 

1  Vi 

o 

|| 

11 

|| 

c 

2 

TOTALS 

5?     «o 
*   r  o> 

131 

•g-t->M 

l« 

c 

-at 

i 

a 

1 

13  _o 

>"S 
a 

3  . 

bo 

s 

2 

1 

E 

,1  '"'5. 

ti| 

1  ,*  £ 

.  oJ 

g 

"3  d 

z* 

^1 

4J 

o2 
T* 

rH 

V 

H 

• 
B 

i 

3 

S|I 

W  o  <* 
^   DQ 

<j  0)  0) 

^| 

oo 
oo 

03 

it 

s|  . 

IM 

t-1  o 

C5  3^ 
OO 

«J 

I 

^« 

0) 

o 
ft 
a 

P 

00 

«**! 

.SB 

«!§ 

«3° 

ull 

s 

• 

Is. 

Pn 

X. 

.oj 

£  ~ 

B 

ma 

£  9 

1? 

IS     4) 

c*b 

0.4  0 

E 

sl§ 

§c 

g|* 

gll 

g|     . 

It 

SB 
0) 

§S 

Is 

•3 

B 

CO 

iU'S'S 

«f  s 

«'S 

(B       0 

5 

®  t-   W 

O  C 

:.•/.- 

ai  n 

DQ 

si 

8 

"3  >> 

V 

"o  ftd 

"S-S  a 

o'S'5 

^P 

'otjvl 

§«'a 

"S-S  6 

0< 

*.§ 

o^ 

bc-° 

f> 

> 

> 

!> 

> 

> 

p 

> 

g 

K> 

5 

"*< 

2 

Aye  |  No||Aye|Xo||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No|| 


F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

16 
17 
14 
15 

10 

2 
1 

2 

2 

1 
1 
5 
2 
7 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

11 
12 
11 
9 
11 

1 
1 

7 
7 
7 
10 
8 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

•  A 
A 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

15 
14 
10 
13 
11 

3 
2 

4 
5 
6 
4 
8 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

12 
17 
12 
13 
15 

2 
1 

7 
2 
5 
5 
4 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

'A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

14 
11 
14 

12 
15 

4 

2 

5 
4 
3 

7 
4 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

11 
9 
15 
15 
14 

1 
1 
1 

8 
10 
3 
3 
4 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

13 
15 
19 
13 
12 

2 

1 
2 

6 
2 

5 
5 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

A 
A 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

12 
12 
13 
9 
11 

3 
3 

7 
7 
6 
7 
5 

34 

29 

211  24 

ell  30 

1130 

win 

II  22 
II  12 

1411  30 
26||  31 

1!  22 
l||  26 

II  21 
(I  23 

1)24 
1119 

411  10  I  231)  36 
7||  20  [17(136 

II  517 
II  495 

37 

79 

206 
186 

63 

8||54 

31157 

II  34|  40||  61 

1||48 

1144 

||  43  |11||  30  |  40||  72 

H1012 

116 

392 

Character  "F"  Indicates  vote  for  policies  supported  by  the  Labor  Lobby. 
Character  "A"  Indicates  vote  against  policies  supported  by  the  Labor  Lobby. 
•  Made  motion  to  reconsider  vote. 


Table  V — Records  of  Assemblymen 


c  = 

O  0 

+3 

O  4) 

ri 

1* 

0>     1 

"S'c 

O    i    - 
-(->  fc.  O 
03  4)  3 

°'s 

TOTALS 

ft 

C  co 

<M    0 

§  2 

flj         .? 

r^ 

®O 

h 

0  a) 
7  Pi    . 

Is 

-3 

»| 

w2~  6 
«c°* 

<U           * 

4)  0     . 

5 

0) 

J 

s® 

gli 

b 

W 
O 

k^ 

3.C 
o  to 
c  n-^ 

t,  C  4)^2 

§«15 

c  c     ° 

ft 

3 

rt 

•u 

C  *~*    * 

o 

j^  3  p* 

0  i  C 

o  ^^-c 

aj  ^ 

£ 

c 

i£l 

-    ,.'    - 

o  o!c 

£ 

0 

!!§ 

o  g±! 
0<iS£ 

4_)    ^J    C) 

O 

1 

-d 

>> 

EH 

K* 

H 

H 

^ 

<! 

Assemblymen    |Aye|  No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye  |No||Aye  |No||Aye|No|| 


Beatty    

F 

A 

A 

A 

1 

3 

Beckett    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Benedict   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Bennick   

F 

F 

F 

F 

4 

Bishop    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

5 

Bliss    
Bohnett          .... 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

6 
6 

Brown    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Butler               ... 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Callaghan    

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

6 

Cattell    

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

6 
5 

Clark    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

A 

F 

F 

A 

A 

2 

3 

Cogswell    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Cronin    

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

6 
5 

1 

Cunningham    .  .  . 

A 

A 

A 

A 
A 

A 

A 

A 

3 
5 

Farwell    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

jrgeley    

A 

A 

A 

A 

4 

Fitzgerald    
Flint     

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

2 
6 

4 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Gaylord    

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

3 

2 

Gerdes   

F 

A 

A 

A 

1 

3 

Griffin    

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

1 

4 

Griffiths    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

5 

Guill    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Hall    

F 

F 

F 

3 

Hamilton    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Harlan    

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

4 

I 

Hayes   

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

5 

Held    

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

4 

2 

Hewitt    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Hinkle  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Hinshaw    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Jasper    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 

3 

2 

Joel    

F 

A 

F 

F 

3 

1 

Total    vote. ...|  28    |    5   ||    10  |  28  ||  30  |  8  ||  14    |23||     4   |28||  28  |    9||165  | 

Character  "F"  shows  vote  for  what  the  Local  Option  advocates  wanted  and 
against  what  the  Liquor  Lobby  was  working  for. 

Character  "A"  shows  vote  against  what  the  Local  Option  advocates  wanted 
and  for  what  the  Liquor  Lobby  was  working. 

A  clear  record  on  the  measure  shows  six  "F's." 


on  Local  Option  Bill. 


§1 

O  <D 

•M   bfi 

Sg 

<U     1 
cd   r* 

O     1     !-< 

+J  fc.  O 
rt  V  3 

c*J 

TOTAL 

ft 

®o 

• 

CB 
_  w 
5  cd 

<H    0 

2;  C 
C  o 
0)  C 
02  _g 

°S 

3 

$>  o 

o  •••* 

O          ' 

a 

T 

(-<  4->  ^~*    fll 

ajO+j 

CJ 

G  «M  ^ 

3° 

1-4 

.2 

**  q  O 

^4 

+J 

rt. 

a) 

O 

III 

>> 

d)  !"« 

Ij| 

« 

d 

o 

"o 

o  concur 
Townshi] 
ment. 

o  concur 
Amendmi 
mit  sale 
in  hotels 

P. 

PQ 
a 

9 

O 

•w 

B 

C 

1 

<J 

^ 

|j 

> 

H 

H 

»> 

§ 

•"1 

Assemblymen    |Aye|  No  ||Aye|  No||Aye  |No||Aye|No)|Aye  |No||Aye|No|| 


Judson    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Kehoe  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Kennedy    

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

5 

1 

Lamb    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Lynch    

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

4 

2 

Lyon  of  L.  A.  .  . 
Lyon  of   S.   F... 

F 

A 

A 
A 
A 

F 
F 

A 

A 
A 

F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

3 

4 

1 

6 
2 

2 

Malone     

F 

A 

F 

A 

2 

a 

2 

March    

F 

A 

F 

2 

i 

3 

McDonald    

A 

A 

F 

F 

A 

A 
A 

A 
A 

F 

A 

3 

6 

2 

1 

Mendenhall    .... 
Mott        

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

6 
6 

Mullally    

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

5 

1 

Nolan    

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

6 

Polsley   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Randall    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

$ 

Rimlinger    

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

5 

1 

Rodgers  of  S.  F. 
Rogers  of  A.  ... 
Rosendale    
Rutherford    
Ryan    

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 
A 
A 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

A 
A 

5 
4 

6 
1 

2 
2 
6 

4 

Sbragia.    

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

6 

Schmitt    

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

6 

Slater    

A 

F 

A 

A 

F 

2 

3 

1 

Smith    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Stevenot    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Stuckenbruck.  .  . 
Sutherland    
Telf  er     

F 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

1 
3 
fi 

2 

2 

3 

1 

Tibbits     

A 

A 

A 

A 

4 

a 

Walker    

A 

F 

1 

1 

4 

Walsh    

A 

A 

A 

A 

4 

? 

Williams    

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

5 

1 

Wilson    

A 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

3 

3 

Wyllie    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Young    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Total    vote  — 
Forward  

20 

28 

11 
5 

1    23 

1  10 

15  1 
28  ! 

26 
30 

12  1 

8  1 

22 
14 

16  1 
23  1 

I  12 
1     4 

20  | 
28 

1  23 
|  28 

121 
91 

120 
165 

92 
50 

28 
25 

Grand  Total..  |  48    |  16   ||    33  |  43  ||  56  |20  ||  36    |39  ||  16   1 48  ||  51  |  21||285  |142  |53 

Character  "F"  shows  vote  for  what  the  Local  Option  advocates  wanted  and 
against  what  the  Liquor  Lobby  was  working  for. 

Character  "A"  shows  vote  against  what  the  Local  Option  advocates  wanted 
and  for  what  the  Liquor  Lobby  was  working. 

A  clear  record  on  the  measure  shows  six  "F*s." 


Table  VI — Records  of  Senators  on  Local  Option  Bill. 


—  m 
~ 


03 


<D.C 
ESS 

ill 

|£S 


. 

c  ->: 

0) 

6  S3 

<!g 

c«2 

O  Q,o 


55 


A  4  W 


O  4)  O 

£fts 

oJS 


o^S 
""  ft 
,2  2 

"d*j   03 

gcc 

»c^ 
^  c  o 

o^ 
2f». 


Senator 


| Aye  |  No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No||Aye|No|| 


Avey    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

5 

Re  ban     

A 

A 

F 

| 

A 

| 

1 

5 

Bell     

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Bills   

A 

A 

g 

A 

A 

5 

Blrdsall    

A 

A 

F 

F 

A 

F 

3 

3 

Black    
Boynton    

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

6 
6 

A 

A 

F 

^ 

A 

A 

1 

5 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

5 

Caminettl    

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

6 

Campbell    
Cartwrlght   

A 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

| 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 

A 

6 
3 
1 

2 
5 

Curtln    

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 

F 

z 

4 

Cutten    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Estudlllo    
Finn    

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 

A 

6 

5 

Gates    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Hans  

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

5 

Hare    

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

6 

Hewitt    
Holohan    

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 
F 

6 
2 

4 

Kurd    

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 

F 

2 

4 

Juilllard    

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 

F 

2 

4 

Larklns   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Lewis     
Martinelll   

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 
F 

6 
1 

4 

Regan    

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

i 

Roseberry   

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Rush    

A 

A 

F 

F 

A 

F 

3 

3 

Sanford    

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 

F 

2 

4 

Shanahan    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

6 

Stetson    

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

4 

| 

Strobridge    
Thompson    

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

6 
6 

Tyrrell      

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 

F 

i 

4 

Walker    

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

i 

Welch   

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 

A 

1 

5 

Wolfe    

A 

A 

F 

A 

1 

3 

Wright     

A 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

3 

3 

Total   vote....  |  23   |  17   ||    23  |  17  ||  30  |  3  ||  19   |20  ||  18   |21  ||  28  |  12||129  |102  |  9 

Character  "F"  shows  vote  for  what  the  Local  Option  advocates  wanted  and 
against  what  the  Liquor  Lobby  was  working  for. 

Character  "A"  shows  vote  against  what  the  Local  Option  advocates  wanted 
and  for  what  the  Liquor  Lobby  was  working. 

A  clear  record  on  the  measure  shows  six  "F's." 


FRANKLIN  HICHBORN'S 

"STORY  OF  THE  CALIFORNIA  LEGIS- 
LATURE OF  1909" 

SHOULD  BE  IN  THE  LIBRARY  OF 
EVERY  READER 

OF  THE 

Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of 

1911 

The  two  are  companion  volumes.  The  Story  of  1909 
shows  the  beginning  of  the  fight  for  progress  and  reform 
which  was  carried  to  successful  conclusion  in  1911,  and 
how  at  the  1909  session,  reform  measures  were  blocked 
and  defeated. 

COMMENTS  BY  PRESS  AND  EDUCATORS. 

PICTURE  OF  THE  AMERICAN  SYSTEM. 

(San  Francisco  Bulletin.) 

Franklin  Hichborn's  "Story  of  the  Session  of  the  California 
Legislature  of  1909,"  which  has  just  issued  from  the  press,  is  a 
book  which  should  be  read  and  kept  for  reference  not  only  by 
every  editor,  politician  and  public  man,  but  by  every  intelligent 
citizen  in  California. 

Not  only  is  the  book  an  accurate  record  of  the  votes  of  every 
member  of  the  Legislature  on  moral,  political  and  industrial  issues, 
but  it  tells  lucidly  how  the  work  of  the  Legislature  was  done, 


Ixi 

what  compromises  were  made,  and  who  made  them,  and  it  points 
out  the  mistakes  made  by  reformers. 

Mr.  Hichborn  emphasizes  the  fact  that  although  the  reform 
element  had  a  majority  in  both  Senate  and  Assembly,  good  bills 
were  defeated  and  vicious  measures  enacted.  He  attributes  this 
result  to  three  causes:  the  facts  that  the  reform  element  was 
without  a  plan  of  action,  that  it  was  -without  organization,  and  that 
the  machine  was  permitted  to  organize  both  sides. 

He  tells  the  story  of  the  fights  on  the  anti-Racetrack  Gambling 
bill,  on  railroad  legislation,  on  the  Commonwealth  Club  bills  for 
the  reform  of  abuses  in  the  law,  on  the  Local  Option  bill,  on  the 
Change  of  Venue  bill,  on  the  anti-Japanese  bills  and  on  the 
Direct  Primary  bill.  His  statements  are  amply  verified  by  refer- 
ence and  quotations  in  the  footnotes  and  appendices. 

There  is  an  interesting  chapter  on  the  San  Francisco  delega- 
tion, which  cast  nearly  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  vote  in  each 
house,  and  which,  with  few  exceptions,  stood  solidly  with  the 
machine  and  against  every  reform  bill. 

Mr.  Hichborn  does  not  neglect  to  recount  the  activity  of  the 
lobbyists  and  the  manner  in  which  the  "faithful"  were  rewarded 
by  the  machine.  The  book  is  a  complete  birdseye  view  of  the 
session  and  an  interesting  exposition  of  the  practical  workings  of 
the  Legislature.  It  should  be  read  by  every  student  of  American 
government,  from  Mr.  Bryce  downward.  Let  us  hope  that  Mr. 
Hichborn  will  report  future  sessions,  also,  as  he  has  reported  the 
session  of  1909. 


THE  1909  CALIFORNIA  LEGISLATURE. 
(Collier's  Weekly,  Dec.  25,  1909.) 

In  the  California  Legislature  last  year  a  majority  stood  for 
good  government.  Considerable  bad  legislation,  nevertheless,  was 
passed  and  few  bills  of  a  so-called  reform  nature  became  law 
without  being  remodeled  to  suit  the  machine.  Why  was  this  so 
with  a  well  meaning  majority?  The  opponents  of  the  machine, 
new  to  their  duties,  were  mostly  unskilled  in  the  details  of  legis- 
lation. Least  of  all  did  they  seem  to  understand  the  importance 
of  the  preliminary  organization  of  the  two  Houses.  The  machine 
members  had  their  work  mapped  out  before  the  Legislature  met. 
The  reformers,  on  the  contrary,  allowed  the  machine  forces  to 
elect  a  Speaker  through  the  timidity  of  some  of  the  House  mem- 
bers, who  feared  possible  failure  and  subsequent  punishment  in 
the  loss  of  local  appropriation  bills.  The  machine  Speaker  ap- 
pointed committees  according  to  prearranged  program,  and  needed 
legislation  was  chloroformed  in  committee.  In  the  attempt  to  pass 
the  Race-Track  Law  it  was  discovered  that  the  clerk  of  the 


Ixii 

Senate  Enrolling  and  Engrossing  Committee  had  been  a  recent 
employee  of  a  notorious  California  pool-room.  The  bill  for  non- 
partisan  judicial  nominations  was  held  up  in  committee  until  the 
day  before  adjournment  and  defeated  in  the  rush  of  the  closing 
hours.  Other  bills  were  improperly  entered  by  title  on  the  journal 
in  the  hope  of  thus  having  them  declared  unconstitutional.  These 
reflections,  and  much  more  of  interest  to  every  one  interested  in 
politics,  may  be  found  embodied  in  a  little  volume  called  "The 
Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909."  Its  author  is  Franklin 
Hichborn  of  Santa  Clara,  California. 

If  every  legislator  elected  in  each  State  next  year  would 
peruse  this  volume,  the  machines  might  sooner  be  dismantled. 
Even  the  pettiest  politics  is  a  science.  Emerson  thinks  that 
success  in  government  and  in  a  peanut-stand  have  much  in  com- 
mon. Even  thp  peanut  business  must  be  learned. 


HIS  RECORD  UNDID   HIM. 
(California  "Weekly.) 

The  case  of  Harry  Pulcifer  should  be  a  warning  to  two  kinds 
of  people,  to  those  who  make  records  and  to  those  who  should 
make  records  known.  It  was  Hichborn's  "Story  of  the  California 
Legislature,"  that  defeated  Pulcifer.  There  was  no  getting  away 
from  that  record.  And  this  was  no  injustice  to  Pulcifer.  No  man 
has  any  right  to  quarrel  with  his  own  record.  Nothing  spoke 
against  Pulcifer  but  his  record.  It  was  the  only  objection  to  him. 
What  Hichborn's  history  did  in  that  district  it  has  done  in  many 
others.  That  history  has  proven  a  mighty  profitable  proposition 
to  the  State  of  California.  Some  plan  should  be  devised  for  a  like 
history  of  each  legislative  session.  Who  will  see  to  it? 


ONE    REASON    WHY    NEXT    LEGISLATURE    WILL     BE    GOOD. 

(Fresno   Republican.) 

One  of  the  most  important  reasons  why  the  next  Legislature 
(1911)  is  going  to  be  decent  is  the  unobtrusive  and  unrewarded 
service  of  a  quiet  newspaper  man,  Franklin  Hichborn,  who  kept 
track  of  what  the  last  Legislature  did  and  wrote  it  down  in  a 
book. 

Men  with  only  a  vague  knowledge  of  legislative  affairs  read 
the  clear  records  of  that  book  and  were  inspired  with  ambition 
to  do  the  things  that  are  right  and  worth  while  in  the  law-making 


Ixiii 

body  of  the  State.  Legislators  whose  records  could  not  stand  the 
test  of  publicity  had  to  face  those  records  when  they  went  home. 

If  at  any  point,  the  Hichborn  record  against  any  man  was  biased 
by  the  mistake  or  personal  prejudice  of  the  author,  the  legislator 
concerned  had  no  difficulty  meeting  and  explaining  the  record,  so 
any  errors  of  fallible  human  judgment  which  the  book  may  have 
contained  did  no  harm.  But  the  stern  facts,  marshaled  in  their 
relations,  did  fatal  harm  to  those  condemned  by  them.  The  whole 
defeated  Loa  Angeles  gang  attributed  their  defeats  to  Hichborn. 
The  defeat  of  unfit  men  elsewhere,  and  the  making  clearly  right  of 
muddled  men  as  well  as  the  renomination  and  assured  re-election 
of  positively  right  men,  are  all  in  large  part  due  to  the  labor  of 
this  one  writer,  who  simply  took  pains  to  collect  the  facts  and 
present  them  in  order. 

It  was  a  public  service  of  immeasurable  value. 


HICHBORN'S  WORK. 
(Chicago    Public.) 

To  have  read  Franklin  Hichborn's  Story  of  the  California  Legis- 
lature of  1909,  and  then  to  have  considered  the  course  that  Califor- 
nia politics  has  taken  since,  is  to  be  in  a  state  of  mind  to  think  of 
the  two  as  having  in  some  degree  at  least  the  relation  of  cause  and 
effect.  That  story  is  a  masterly  exposure,  by  a  competent  ob- 
server and  writer,  of  government  by  misrepresentatlves.  And  now 
California  is  far  on  the  way  toward  putting  the  People's  Power 
check  upon  her  representatives,  whoever  they  are  and  whatever 
their  functions.  Mr.  Hichborn's  purpose,  therefore,  of  publishing 
a  companion  book  on  the  California  Legislature  of  1911,  will  doubt- 
less receive  ample  encouragement.  Local  interest  alone  should 
insure  a  large  circulation  of  these  books  in  California,  but  the 
methods  of  misrepresentative  government  are  so  much  alike  every- 
where that  Mr.  Hichborn's  true  stories  will  be  educative  in  any 
other  State  of  the  Union  as  well  as  in  California. 


HICHBORN'S  SERVICE  TO  THE  STATE. 

(San  Francisco  Star.) 

Lynn  Haines,  author  of  "The  Minnesota  Legislature  of  1909," 
has  written  a  review  of  the  session  of  the  Minnesota  Legislature 
just  closed,  calling  his  book  "The  Minnesota  Legislature  of  1911." 

AB  in  his  first  work,  in  his  "Minnesota  Legislature  of  1911,"  Mr. 
Haines  has  followed  the  general  plan  of  Franklin  Hichborn's 
"Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909." 

Mr.  Haines  has  sent  a  copy  of  his  new  book  to  Mr.  Hichborn. 


Ixiv 

In  this  volume,  the  author  has  written:  "To  Franklin  Hichborn, 
The  Pioneer,  Lynn  Haines." 

In  the  preface  of  his  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of 
1909,"  Hichborn  stated  that  the  labor  of  preparing  the  volume  for 
the  press  would  be  justified  if  it  gave  The  People  Information  of 
the  "weakness,  the  strength,  and  purposes,  and  the  affiliations  of 
the  Senators  and  Assemblymen  who  sat  in  the  Legislature  of 
1909;"  and  pointed  "the  way  for  a  new  method  of  publicity  to 
crush  corruption  and  to  promote  reform — a  way  which  others  better 
prepared  for  the  work  than  I,  may,  in  California,  and  even  in  other 
States,  follow." 

Hichborn's  book  did  furnish  The  People  of  California  with 
theretofore  unobtainable  information  of  their  Senators  and  Assem- 
blymen, and,  acting  largely  upon  that  information,  The  People  of 
California  returned  to  the  Legislature  those  members  who  were 
worthy,  and  refused  re-election  to  those  who  were  unworthy. 

And  the  book  pointed  the  way  for  a  new  method  of  publicity  to 
crush  corruption  and  promote  reform,  of  which  other  States  have 
been  quick  to  take  advantage. 

With  Hichborn's  book  before  him,  Mr.  Haines  has  done  a  large 
service  for  Minnesota  by  publishing  similar  reviews  of  the  Minne- 
sota Legislature  of  1909  and  of  1911.  A  similar  review  has  appeared 
of  the  last  Oregon  legislative  session. 

Following  Hichborn's  plan,  a  citizen  of  New  Hampshire  has 
prepared  a  review  of  the  work  of  the  Legislature  of  that  State. 
Colorado  and  Wisconsin  are  reported  to  have  similar  works  in 
preparation. 

Hichborn  must  feel  that  the  tests  which  he  fixed  for  justification 
of  his  1909  review  have  been  met. 

We  have  been  told  that  the  California  Legislature  of  1911  was 
the  "best  ever"! 

We  concur! 

Absolutely  true! 

And  we  believe  that  we  are  indebted  for  that  indisputable  fact 
to  Hichborn's  book,  the  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of 
1909." 


"THE   BEAST  THAT   KILLS." 
(W.  G.  Eggleston,  in  Chicago  Public.) 

Two  men  have  recently  set  themselves  to  describing  the  "Beast 
that  Kills"  so  that  its  tracks  and  marks  may  be  recognized,  anJ 
The  People  may  know  "how  it  works"  and  why  it  exists.  The  first 
writer  is  Franklin  Hichborn  of  Santa  Clara,  California,  who  has 
just  published  a  book,  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of 
1909."  The  second  writer  is  Judge  Ben  B.  LJndsey,  of  Denver, 


Ixv 

Colorado,  who  has  just  begun  In  Everybody's  Magazine  the  pub- 
lication of  his  political  autobiography. 

Judge  Lindsey's  first  installment  of  "The  Beast  and  the  Jungle" 
tells  how  he  came  to  see  the  Beast  because  of  what  the  animal 
did  to  his  friend  and  tried  to  do  to  him.  Hichborn  tells  what  the 
Beast  does  to  you  and  to  me — not  what  it  has  done  or  tried  to  do 
to  him.  He  has  stood  within  close  range  of  the  Beast  and  snap- 
shotted it  in  action.  He  gives  328  pages  of  moving  pictures  that 
will  be  recognized  instantly  by  anyone  familiar  with  the  work  of 
a  political  machine. 

The  chief  value  of  Hichborn's  book  and  of  Judge  L/indsey's 
story  is  that  they  are  as  useful  for  the  voter  of  Massachusetts, 
Rhode  Island,  Pennsylvania  or  any  other  State  as  for  the  machine- 
ridden  voter  of  California  or  of  Denver.  The  machine  uses  prac- 
tically the  same  methods  in  all  the  States  and  with  all  State 
Legislatures,  except  where  the  people  have  the  initiative  and 
referendum  antidote. 

To  know  what  is  done  by  the  political  machine  of  Special  Privi- 
lege is  important;  it  is  far  more  important  to  know  "how  it  is 
done."  It  is  necessary  to  know  that  in  order  to  make  a  successful 
fight  against  the  machine.  And  every  man  interested  in  smashing 
the  machine  and  putting  it  out  of  business  should  know  what 
Hichborn  has  told  and  what  Judge  Lindsey  is  telling. 


OPINIONS   OF    EDUCATORS   AND    PUBLIC    MEN. 

Dr.  David  Starr  Jordan,  President  of  Stanford  University. — "The 
Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909"  is  a  good  piece  of 
needed  work.  I  appreciate  most  highly  the  value  of  work  of  this 
kind.  If  we  are  going  to  have  a  free  government  by  the  people, 
our  representatives  must  be  steadily  watched  and  steadily  in- 
structed. 


Francis  J.  Heney  (Letter  written  on  board  the  Shasta  Limited, 
San  Francisco  to  Portland).— I  brought  with  me  your  "Story  of 
the  California  Legislature  of  1909."  To-day  was  my  first  oppor- 
tunity to  read  it.  I  wish  that  I  could  compel  every  male — yes, 
and  every  female — over  fourteen  years  of  age  in  California  to  read 
it;  aye,  to  study  it.  You  have  performed  a  great  public  benefit  by 
writing  that  clear,  logical,  sane,  fair  history.  To  my  mind  it  is  a 
masterpiece. 


Hon.  Ben.  B.  Lindsey,  Judge  of  the  Juvenile  Court,  Denver, 
Colo.;  Author  of  "The  Beast  and  the  Jungle." — I  am  delighted 
with  "The  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909."  What  in- 


Ixvi 

terests  me  as  much  as  the  book  is  the  idea  embodied  in  getting 
out  such  a  book  following  each  Legislature.  It  is  splendid.  I  am 
going  to  bring  it  to  the  attention  of  our  City  Club  and  some  of 
our  reform  organizations  here  with  the  hope  that  your  good 
example  may  be  imitated  in  other  places.  You  are  rendering  a 
genuine  service  to  the  cause  of  democracy  in  this  country. 


Hon.  John  Swett,  Former  State  Superintendent  of  Public  In- 
struction.— Franklin  Hichborn's  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature 
of  1909"  is  a  volume  of  intense  interest  to  all  thoughtful  American 
citizens  who  are  in  favor  of  reasonable  political  reforms.  It  Is 
original  in  its  conception,  and  thorough  in  its  execution.  The 
legislative  record  of  the  vote  of  every  member  of  the  Legislature 
on  the  important  reform  bills  admits  of  no  contradiction  of  truth. 
In  view  of  the  coming  election,  this  volume  is  an  invaluable  con- 
tribution to  the  cause  of  good  government.  I  commend  it  most 
earnestly  to  the  citizens  of  California,  and  shall  do  all  I  can  to 
call  the  attention  of  my  friends  and  neighbors  to  it  from  now  until 
election  day. 


Dr.  E.  A.  Ross,  Department  of  Political  Economy,  University  of 
Wisconsin. — I  find  "The  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of 
1909"  an  absolutely  unique  thing.  Nothing  like  it  has  ever  been 
done  before.  It  is  a  pity  that  something  like  it  couldn't  be  sent 
out  as  a  public  document.  I  hope  that  similar  work  will  be  done 
in  certain  other  States  whose  Legislatures  need  close  watching. 
Perhaps  Hichborn's  spiny  history  of  the  Legislature  will  prove  as 
valuable  an  invention  as  Burbank's  spineless  cactus. 


Professor  Guido  H.  Marx,  Stanford  University. — You  have  done 
a  most  valuable  piece  of  work  for  which  every  good  citizen  is  in- 
debted to  you.  To  the  uninitiated  it  is  a  perfect  eye-opener. 


M.  Lissner,  Los  Angeles. — "The  Story  of  the  California  Legis- 
lature of  1909"  is  to  me  intensely  interesting,  not  only  because 
it  so  clearly  separates  the  wolves  from  the  sheep,  but  for  the  les- 
sons it  teaches  and  pitfalls  it  shows  us  how  to  avoid  in  the  future. 


PRESS   COMMENT. 

New  York  Sun. — An  interesting  account  of  the  struggle  between 
reformers  and  the  machine  is  given  in  "The  Story  of  the  California 
Legislature  of  1909,"  by  Franklin  Hichborn.  The  book  has  a  value 
to  the  student  of  politics  wholly  apart  from  its  local  interest,  for 


Ixvii 

the  systematic  accounts  of  legislative  action  are  rare  and  here 
the  author  has  analyzed  -"  that  was  done,  even  to  the  extent  of 
tracing  the  record  of  the  members  as  shown  by  their  votes.  The 
tone  is  strictly  impartial. 


San  Francisco  Monitor. — To  denounce  in  terms,  no  matter  how 
forceful  and  sincere,  the  machinations  of  grafting  lawmakers  and 
purchased  legislators  is  not  always  effective  of  good.  It  is  quite 
another  thing  to  throw  the  clear,  strong  light  of  truth  on  their  evil 
activities — to  draw  the  curtain  aside  and  let  the  daylight  in.  Let 
that  be  done  and  the  suffering  public  may  be  forewarned  and  armed 
for  future  conflicts.  It  is  this  that  Franklin  Hichborn  has  done  in 
his  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909."  It  is  difficult  to 
imagine  any  grown-up,  thinking  citizen,  any  voter  of  the  State, 
passing  this  book  by. 


Los  Angeles  Express. — Hichborn's  "Story  of  the  California 
Legislature  of  1909"  will  keep  fresh  in  the  public  mind  the  legis- 
lator's record.  Whether  that  record  be  good  or  bad,  the  record  is 
writ,  and  neither  future  piety  nor  wit  can  cancel  half  a  line  of  it. 


Sacramento  Bee. — As  a  study  of  legislation  Hichborn's  "Story 
of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909"  is  entitled  to  high  praise  for 
its  sure  insight  into  the  hidden  sources  of  lawmaking.  It  will 
interest  every  politician  by  the  keenness  of  its  analysis  and  the 
lucidity  of  its  demonstrations.  There  is  nothing  denunciatory  in 
its  tone,  and  its  style  is  dispassionate,  but  yet  its  logic  is  irresist- 
ible, and  its  conclusions  unsparing.  The  facts  are  made  to  speak 
for  themselves  and  to  bear  conviction  on  their  face. 


The 
STORY   OF   THE    CALIFORNIA    LEGISLATURE    OF    1909. 


Address 
The  James  H.  Barry  Company,  1122-1124  Mission  St.,  San  Francisco, 

or 
The  Citizens   League  of  Justice,    Phelan   Building,    San   Francisco. 

328  Pages  Price 

Both    Editions  Popular  Edition,  $1.25 

Bound  in  Cloth  Library  Edition,  $1.50 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A    001  039  576    2 


H  n  Ti 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CA     RIVERSIDE  LIBRARY 

inn  nun  ii 

3  1210007999871 


